As I was rewatching Interstellar a few days ago, a question popped into my mind:
Is there a relationship between black holes (spacetime disturbances) and psychological stuckness (and similar phenomena)?
But since I don’t know much about physics, I re-framed it as:
Is there a relationship between formal systems (paradoxes) and psychological stuckness (and similar phenomena)?
Sure, if we construct the analogy 🙂 In this post, I’ll give that a try.
A formal system is an abstract system consisting of axioms (truths without the need of a proof) and inference rules (a way to combine axioms to deduce new truths, called theorems).
Stuckness is a psychological phenomenon that happens to all of us – that feeling that we’re stuck on something. It could also feel like running in circles (e.g., getting pissed off by the same things over and over, or public speaking anxiety, or …, etc.)
Now, Gödel proved that:
[Completeness] In any sufficiently complex formal system, there exist true statements that cannot be proven within that system.
[Consistency] In any sufficiently complex formal system, the system cannot demonstrate (prove) that it is free of contradiction.
Here’s when the analogy becomes interesting: the Ego can be represented as a formal system. Then, stuckness appears exactly at the boundaries of what the system cannot prove or resolve.
Too theoretical, give me practical
Let’s assume an Ego with the following axioms:
- “I must be strong”
- “I must be good”
- “If I am real, I will be rejected”
These axioms define:
- Their logic
- Their conclusions
- Their self-image
Now, notice that whenever a conflict appears in such an Ego, it gets created by exactly those axioms, and it cannot be resolved using those axioms. You cannot fix the system from inside the same rule set that produced the contradiction.
So the person becomes:
- circular
- repetitive
- trapped in self-justifying logic
- endlessly explaining symptoms, but never dissolving them
That loop is the stuck mind. But note that stuckness isn’t weakness — it’s the system preserving consistency (I can keep my current system) at the cost of completeness (I won’t discover new things).
Healing = expansion
Gödel also showed the only way around is:
You must step into a stronger system to prove the statement.
Psychologically, that stronger system is:
- a new observer (therapist / God / higher Self / awareness)
- a new language
- a new story
- a higher level of consciousness
Healing is the gradual expansion of that system through insight, tears, language, dreams, prayer, forgiveness, journaling and love.
Exercise
- Locate the loop (your repeating theorem)
- E.g.: No matter what I do, I end up drained.
- State your core logical belief (axiom)
- E.g.: If I were truly myself, then I wouldn’t need to act too much.
- Construct the paradox (this is the Gödel moment)
- E.g.: I want real, deep, safe love.
- Find the unprovable statement (the hidden truth)
- The real reason I can’t resolve this is because, at some level, I believe that ____.
- Identify your “meta-system” (the way out)
- A version of me that could hold both A and B without breaking would be someone who ____.
What’s next
Great, we have the system, we have the understanding, but so what? A person who is stuck doesn’t need to be told “here is which axioms you should refine”. They need to feel heard, understood, and listened by someone with true compassion.
This is the difference between whataboutism (philosophizing about something) and isism (just being).
Going deeper
What was my need to write this post? Understanding, clarity. These systems are abstract and only help us communicate with each other.
How far can one go with the meta–meta–meta–meta… levels?
How much awareness is enough?
How much can a human bear?
At which point does one become a bit more rigid? Or a bit more fluid?
At which point does one go beyond understanding?
Maybe the final “meta” is not more understanding, but continuous healing and acceptance, of self and of others.
bor0's reflective blog 