Demonstrates how dimensional elevation can transform social crises by addressing cognitive paradigms.
Modern society is enmeshed in multi-dimensional crises: zero-sum geopolitical conflicts, religious confrontations, consumerist alienation, and a global surge in chronic and mental illnesses. This paper argues that these seemingly distinct phenomena share a common, deep-seated root cause: the Low-Dimensional Cognitive Paradigm. Built upon three reductionist pillars—the mechanical universe theory, the accidental life theory, and the epiphenomenal consciousness theory—modern civilization has institutionalized a worldview that fragments reality into isolated, competing material parts. Based on the four foundational laws of Yuanxian Theory—the Law of Transcendental Self-Consistency (TCSC), the Law of Cosmic Factor Conservation (FSC), the Law of Spacetime Uniqueness (STM), and the Law of Self-Referential Mind Field Generation (SRM)—this paper introduces a high-dimensional alternative: the worldview of the "Cosmic Organism." Under this framework, we derive corresponding principles of dimensional elevation: mutual symbiosis, dynamic balance, multiplicity in unity, and the oneness of mind and matter. Notably, this paper demonstrates that the cosmic self-referential mind field (Psi-SR) serves as the objective, ultimate source of all primary religious experiences (e.g., Union with God, Buddha-nature, Sufi ecstasy), thereby exposing the fundamental ontological absurdity of "holy wars" and inter-religious conflicts. By applying these high-dimensional principles to international relations, economics, interfaith dialogue, and psychosomatic health, this paper systematically deconstructs the origins of global crises and outlines pragmatic pathways of transformation—shifting from confrontation to covenant, from endless growth to steady-state balance, and from exclusive dogmatism to inclusive symbiosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhenyuan Acharya (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: