"Choice" is the concluding document of the trilogy.
Project "Metamorphosis" is not a monument to the practitioner, nor a mausoleum for the results of his practice; it is not a guide to spiritual self-annihilation, nor a protocol for the deconstruction of personality. Project "Metamorphosis" is an instrument of transformation (metamorphosis). The device and structure of the instrument are directly determined by the properties of the area of its application.
The i-filter is not an enemy to be neutralized and disposed of, but a necessary stage and resource of the metamorphosis process, when one aggregate state of understanding (conceptual) is transformed into another – natural – when consciousness itself sees and understands itself. The process of transforming understanding is accompanied by a change in the mode of thinking.
After the transformation, it is not emptiness that opens up, but a space for service and creation – actions of a different type, originating not from the individual "i," but from natural understanding – an impersonal and living source.
The foundation of the project is a multi-year investigation of consciousness conducted by the author of the project – the practitioner. The practical implementation and method are set forth in the "Report". "Continuation" is a view of the process of understanding from a different perspective.
The current part of the trilogy – "Choice" – represents a scaling of understanding. The practice is not torn from its context; it began and occurred within the real conditions of human society. "Choice" is the scaling of the practitioner's understanding to the dimensions of human civilization: from the individual to the universal.
The project is devoid of ideological and cultural layers, contains no promises, threats, demands, or other forms of motivation and limitation. The exception is the condition for applying the practical method described in the "Report": the result directly depends on the intensity of the practice.
The practical method presented in the "Report" is not the only correct, monolithic, and unchanging one. The described method can be modified: supplemented, altered, adapted to specific conditions at the discretion of the practitioner.
The practitioner is not a representative of another species, nor is he detached from the conditions in which his practice began and proceeded. The practitioner is an entirely ordinary man.
As an ordinary man, the practitioner is an individual representative of humanity, containing within himself everything inherent to man – he is structured in exactly the same way as any man. Individual traits and features differ, but the very foundation is identical for all representatives of his species.
The investigation of himself began as an attempt to resolve a severe crisis, which almost became the final chapter of the practitioner's life.
Having conducted a multi-year practical investigation of his own nature, the practitioner directly learned what he is "made of" and what his "i" was sustained by.
The conducted investigation transformed the investigator, changing his understanding and the very mode of his thinking. The changes occurred from the practitioner's cognition of the foundation of the entire structure of his "i". What had been separated and securely sealed off by the foundation was revealed to the practitioner.
The "black lake," described in the "Report," is the boundary layer, guarding and separating the individual "i" from the universal flow of life. The "black lake" is the foundation, the supporting pillar of the entire structure of the practitioner's i-filter.
Standing before the "lake," the practitioner was faced with a decisive choice. He understood that retreating back would change nothing, would not eliminate the cause of the crisis – he would inevitably fall into the same trap again and return once more to the choice. But he would return under different conditions – exhausted and cornered. And that is the best outcome, for the next such crisis could indeed become the final one.
Therefore, the practitioner made a simple, pragmatic, and, at the same time, strategic decision – he took a step into the unknown, crossed the boundary of his "i".
Taking that step was extremely terrifying. Fear was everywhere, with a density close to that of a liquid. Until that moment, the practitioner had never in his life felt fear of such intensity.
However, it soon became apparent that immersion in the "black lake" was not fatal – the fear was dreadful, but not poisonous; it menaced, but did not wound. The practitioner saw the essence of fear: it is a living defenselessness, blindly and unconsciously striving to protect itself. The practitioner saw this, and the fear dissolved as morning mist dissolves with the sunrise. Nothing threatened life; the practitioner's understanding had moved beyond its former boundaries.
Overcoming the boundary layer was a decisive fork in the road. On one side of this fork lay the previous life, a return to which required no effort. This path was the simplest and most obvious. On the other side of the fork was counter-intuitive uncertainty, concealing within itself all conceivable and inconceivable horrors and sufferings.
At the moment of making the choice, everything was at stake: the practitioner's life, all that was dear and beloved to him, all that he carefully preserved and for which he was prepared to do anything. Only the understanding that retreat and return to the previous life would not solve the problem, but would only postpone the inevitable outcome, determined his choice. The step into the unknown contained within it the potential possibility of overcoming the crisis, but not returning to it again and again.
Having investigated himself, the practitioner understood the cause of the crisis, understood why it could not be resolved by less radical means. The cause of the crisis lay in the very foundation of the practitioner's "i"; his life was built upon this foundation; all of the practitioner's actions contained this foundation, originating from it. The cause lay in the fundamental structure of the practitioner himself, in the very first brick of the intricate construction of the "i" – in fear.
The practitioner understood that fear is not an error or an enemy; it is a necessary basic mechanism. Without it, life itself could hardly take place, for it is defenseless, fragile, and it is necessary to take root in the world, overcoming the shock of birth and the initial difficulties.
Fear is a survival defense mechanism, but the timeframe of its expediency is limited. Fear turns into an atavism, becomes an impediment, when the initial difficulties are overcome and it is necessary to develop further. The "cocoon" becomes constricting, yet it continues to faithfully perform its functions: it protects from the world "outside," while simultaneously preventing understanding from breaking through the "cocoon" from within. The mechanism of fear is bidirectional.
Overcoming fear opens the space that lies on the other side of the "cocoon" of the "i".
Thus, the solution to the severe crisis found by the practitioner is radical and, at the same time, paradoxical: it is necessary to investigate one's own nature, find one's boundaries, and cross them, leaving everything behind.
The process of metamorphosis.
The search for compromises is the postponement of the inevitable choice, and the subsequent painful return to it.
The practitioner sees in people what he found and saw in himself: a human's life is built on fear.
Fear — the basic survival mechanism, applied as a criterion of truth within a human's self-enclosed frame of reference. This state of affairs scales this basic mechanism into a life strategy for all of humanity.
The current size of human civilization has reached a planetary scale. However, various kinds of progress and scaling have not led to a change in the basic settings of the human, have not rid humanity of the cause of suffering, wars, and crises. Humanity continues to fall into the same trap: it lives by that which destroys itself and its home.
Replacing "bad" with "good," "old" with "new," "multicolored" with "green" is incapable of correcting the cause of the approaching crisis of planetary scale. Replacing one thing with another constitutes a mere palliation of the symptoms, not a treatment of the disease itself. Such measures postpone the inevitable outcome but do not affect the cause of its occurrence.
The cause of the civilizational crisis and the cause of the practitioner's crisis are identical: the construction has reached a critical mass and is at the limit of its stability. The tension created by the approaching crisis unambiguously points to this. Due to the planetary scale and global nature of the crisis, there is a high probability that it will be the final one.
Anthropocentrism, in conjunction with the ideology of consumption and endless growth, is an attractive, but potentially dead-end and losing strategy.
The first path: with hope for the best, continue to destroy oneself and one's home, simultaneously attempting merely to palliate the symptoms. Nothing needs to be undertaken; this is the obvious "default" path.
The second path: to avoid dissipating one's limited resources, to rely on nothing, but to attempt to engage in self-investigation – to turn directly to the cause of the crisis and investigate it. Understanding the cause will automatically lead to an understanding of the origin of the symptoms and possible ways to overcome them. A difficult and uncertain path, with no benefit or guarantee of success.
Both paths are opposite and mutually exclusive.
The first path: the path of benefit and accumulation – to exhaust resources, suffocate, and burn in one's own home. When and how this will happen is unknown.
The second path: transformation of the accumulated – life not for oneself, but for the sake of life as such. A potential possibility for service and creation.
Self-investigation always begins and proceeds individually; it is not an all-planetary program for exiting the global crisis. The universal human i-filter possesses enormous inertia. Each individual who contributes to reducing the universal inertia through self-investigation is of significance.
The process of self-investigation is similar to the rule of practice from the "Report": begin and keep doing. The beginning is never ideal. Therefore, one can begin as it turns out – without preparation and without looking back, using what is at hand. It is enough simply to begin.
Freedom of choice – this is not the illusory freedom within the confines of the "cocoon," which boils down to seeking benefit and avoiding discomfort. In this case, it is a true choice of life strategy. The making of such a choice is not easy and occurs through the full acceptance of responsibility for the consequences.
The choice of strategy is always an individual choice. No one will decide for a man how to act and which path to choose. This choice a man makes himself.
Project "Metamorphosis" reveals this choice, makes it visible.
The single and main difference between the paths lies in their foundation. The foundation of the first path remains untouched – it is fear. The foundation of the second path the practitioner builds entirely anew – on honesty.
Honesty is the absence of fear.