05/04/2026
WHEN CONFUSION BECOMES AN IDEOLOGY
There is a stage in cultural development that Ken Wilber called pluralistic consciousness.
It is a genuine achievement. The capacity to question inherited structures, to recognise multiple perspectives, to dismantle dogma. This is real progress.
But every developmental stage has a shadow. And the shadow of this one is the inability to recognise what is worth keeping.
What we are witnessing
We are told that biological s*x is a social construct. That 80 or 90 genders exist, unrelated to biology. That family is an outdated concept in need of reinvention. That everything transmitted through tradition and evolution is suspect until proven otherwise.
This is not liberation. It is confusion dressed as freedom.
And it is worth asking: who benefits from a society that has severed its connection to continuity? From individuals who no longer know where they come from, what they belong to, or what they are passing on?
What tradition actually carries
Tradition is not a collection of rules. It is a carrier.
It carries compressed knowledge: psychological, biological, ecological. Accumulated across generations through the most rigorous testing method available: survival and flourishing over time.
The yogic tradition understood this precisely. The Sanskrit concept of paramparā, teacher-to-student transmission, exists because certain knowledge cannot be passed through text alone. It requires a living chain. A lineage. Someone who embodies the teaching, not merely explains it.
When we sever this chain without understanding what it carries, we don't inherit freedom. We inherit rootlessness.
The psychological cost
Jung observed that groundlessness is among the most dangerous psychological conditions.
A person without roots, without continuity of identity, without a tradition to locate themselves within, is not free. They are available. Available to be colonised by the nearest ideology, the nearest charismatic figure, the nearest collective movement that offers belonging.
The destruction of traditional structures, framed as liberation, produces individuals who are more psychologically dependent, not less.
This is the paradox. And it is worth sitting with.
The distinction that matters
None of this is an argument against questioning tradition. Traditions carry wisdom and they carry shadow. Critical engagement is how traditions evolve rather than ossify.
But there is a difference between questioning from inside understanding and deconstructing from contempt.
Yoga calls this viveka: discrimination. The capacity to distinguish the essential from the accidental, the wisdom from the cultural residue.
This discrimination requires something to discriminate with.
It requires roots.