Three Drivers, Two Bubbles, And One Decision: Who’s Really At The Wheel Of Your Worldview?

If you lead people long enough, you notice something odd.

Two leaders can face:

• The same market conditions.
• The same political climate.
• The same organisational constraints.

One experiences:

• A world of hard limits and fixed rules.
• A red zone of material cause and effect, and not much else.

The other experiences:

• A world where consciousness, information, and subtle fields matter.
• A green zone where more is possible than the spreadsheet suggests.

They are living in the same world and different worlds at once.

Why?

Because they are being driven by different worldviews, often without realising they had a choice.

This is about:

• The two “bubbles” you can live in.
• The three “drivers” who can steer your life.
• And the single decision that changes everything: who you let sit behind the wheel.

Two realities: Red bubble and Green bubble

First, let’s name the terrain.

You can think of two broad worldviews:

Red Worldview (Red bubble):

• Reality is fundamentally material.
• Consciousness is a by-product of brain activity.
• Only what can be measured and reproduced counts as real.
• Anything “paranormal” is dismissed by default.

Green Worldview (Green bubble):

• Reality is fundamentally informational or consciousness-based.
• Physical matter is one expression of a deeper field.
• Subtle phenomena (intuition, telepathy, remote viewing, extraordinary healing) can be:
• Plausible.
• Worth exploring.
• Science is still valued, but the model is larger.

In set terms:

• Imagine a small circle (Red) sitting fully inside a larger circle (Green).
• Green does not throw Red away; it includes and expands it.

From Red:

• Many things are impossible.

From Green:

• Some of those same things become:
• At least plausible.
• Sometimes experientially real.

Strange capacities and where they fit

The conversation in this transcript explores three increasingly unusual capacities:

1. Remote viewing
• Perceiving a distant place without your physical senses being there.
• Consciousness-only perception.
2. Shapeshifting
• Merging your awareness with another being (e.g. an eagle).
• Perceiving and acting through their senses and body.
3. Physical co-location
• Appearing in two places in physical form at the same time.
• The same person manifesting in two locations.

In a Red Worldview:

• These are “impossible” by definition.

In a Green Worldview:

• They may be:
• Hard to test.
• Rare.
• But not automatically absurd.

The key point is not:

• “You must believe in these things.”

It’s:

• The worldview you hold automatically sets:
• What you consider worth investigating.
• Which experiences you are even open to having.
• Where your scientific stop sign is placed.

The scientific stop sign

Traditional science, as currently practised, typically insists on:

• Objectivity.
• Reproducibility.

That’s sensible for many questions.
It becomes a problem when:

• A phenomenon is rare.
• It depends on a person’s level of development.
• It doesn’t reliably show up on demand.

In such cases, science hits a metaphorical stop sign:

• “We can say it is plausible under a certain theory.”
• “We cannot claim it as proven using current methods.”

At that stop sign, you have three options:

1. Red stance:
• “If we can’t prove it by current methods, it doesn’t exist.”
• Everything beyond the sign is declared nonsense.
2. Green stance (scientific):
• “This is plausible within a larger model.”
• “Our methods cannot confirm or deny it yet.”
• “We acknowledge the limit of our tools.”
3. Green stance (personal):
• “As a human, I am free to explore beyond the stop sign.”
• “I may have subjective experiences that science cannot yet fully handle.”

A mature scientist in a Green Worldview can honestly say:

• “As a scientist, I stop here. As a person, I have gone further.”

That double role is uncomfortable, but honest.

The dog whistle mistake

A common mental error looks like this:

“I have not experienced it. Therefore, it does not exist.”

This is the dog whistle mistake:

• Dogs hear frequencies we do not.
• Our lack of perception does not delete those frequencies from reality.

We make the same mistake when we say:

• “I’ve never experienced telepathy, so it’s impossible.”
• “I’ve never seen remote viewing work, so it cannot work.”
• “I’ve never held a million euros, so no one has them.”

Worldview determines how often you make this error:

• Red: often confuses personal non-experience with non-existence.
• Green: accepts that:
• Your sensory range is limited.
• Your current experiences are not the full catalogue of reality.

This is not about being gullible.
It’s about not using your own limitations as proof of universal laws.

Two bubbles and a migration

The transcript describes two “bubbles”:

• Red bubble: people who stop at the scientific stop sign and defend it.
• Green bubble: people who walk past it to explore wider models and experiences.

A migration is underway:

• The Green bubble is growing.
• The Red bubble is shrinking.
• Absolute numbers still favour Red, but the direction is clear.

If you:

• Have moved from Red to Green once,
• You might assume you can never go back.

But that’s not how human minds work.

The three enemies of wisdom (and how we fall back)

Three patterns undermine wise seeing:

1. Ignorance
• You don’t look.
• You don’t engage.
• You never seriously ask whether there’s more.
2. Half-knowledge
   • Skim a few books.
   • Attend a workshop.
• You dip in just enough to be dangerous:
• Draw strong conclusions from weak understanding.
3. Forgetting
• You once saw clearly.
• You stop revisiting and practising.
• Over time, your insight fades into theory.

Of these three, forgetting is the main way:

• Someone who has glimpsed a Green Worldview
• Drifts back into living as if Red is all there is.

Worldview is like a skill:

• If you don’t use it, you lose it.
• If you practise it regularly, it becomes part of who you are.

The bookkeeping metaphor in the conversation says it plainly:

• Learn double-entry and never use it again,
• You will forget.
• Use it daily for years,
• You will not.

The same is true for:

• Seeing yourself as part of an information field.
• Experiencing subtle phenomena.
• Operating from a Green lens.

Primary identity vs acute identity

There’s an important nuance in the way you inhabit worldviews.

You can have:

1. Primary identity
• Your “home turf”.
• The worldview you mostly live from.
• For example: Green as your primary.
2. Acute identity
   • Using Red logic to handle immediate operational issues.
   • Dropping into fully Green to work with subtle phenomena.
• Temporary states you adopt for specific tasks.
• For example:

Think of it like:

• Having a passport from one country and visiting another for a week.

If your primary identity is Green:

• You can visit Red when appropriate (pragmatic, grounded action).
• You do not mistake Red for your home.

If you:

• Spend too much time in Red contexts,
• Stop deliberately returning to Green,

then Red can silently become:

• Your default again.
• Your new primary identity.

That’s forgetting in slow motion.

Three drivers in one car

Now we come to the most practical metaphor: your life as a car.

There are three possible drivers:

1. Awake consciousness
   • Which worldview to adopt.
   • Which information to integrate.
• You are fully present.
• You choose direction intentionally.
• You can decide:
2. Subconscious (autopilot)
   • Driving home on a familiar route and barely remembering the journey.
   • You didn’t consciously choose how.
• Habits and unresolved patterns drive.
3. Collective consciousness
   • Media narratives.
   • Cultural assumptions.
   • Peer pressures.
• The group mind drives:
• You are carried by the stream you’re in.

All three drivers work:

• The car moves.
• You end up somewhere.

The critical questions are:

• “Who do I want driving for which parts of the journey?”
• “Am I choosing the driver consciously, or is it happening by default?”

The risks and uses of each driver

Awake consciousness:

• Best suited to:
• Steering into new worldviews.
• Overriding fear and inertia.
• Making shifts that go against the current.
• Hardest to sustain:
• Requires effort and awareness.
• Not rewarded by every context.

Subconscious:

• Good for:
• Routines that serve you (for example, automatically practising something beneficial).
• Dangerous when:
• Old, unexamined patterns are in charge.
• Trauma or unresolved fear sits at the wheel.

Collective consciousness:

• Can be:
  • The collective is Red-dominated.
  • You plug into mainstream Western norms uncritically.
  • The collective is more evolved than you.
  • You intentionally sync with a conscious community or practice space.

Example:

• Plug into the average Western media stream:
• You will not drift into Green Worldview by accident.
• Plug into a mature contemplative community:
• The collective field can support and accelerate your shift.

The main point:

• Handing the wheel to the collective or subconscious is not always bad.
• Doing it unconsciously almost always is.

Free will as “who holds the wheel?”

We often define free will in terms of:

• Big life choices.
• Career moves.
• Relationship decisions.

In this context, free will is much more surgical:

Free will is your capacity to choose
which driver holds the wheel for your worldview.

You can:

• Let your conditioning drive.
• Let the crowd drive.
• Or decide to:
• Sit behind the wheel yourself.
• Choose which information you integrate (beyond school and media).
• Deliberately widen your field of view.

None of this is taught in school.

And yet, for leaders, few choices are more important.

So what does this mean for your leadership?

Bringing this down to your daily reality:

1. Notice which bubble you are in by default.
   • Dismiss them reflexively (Red)?
   • File them under “interesting but unproven” and stay curious (Green)?
2. Name your primary and acute identities.
   • “From which worldview do I mostly act?”
   • “When do I deliberately switch into a different one, and why?”
3. Watch for the three enemies of wisdom.
   • Ignoring new information?
   • Skimming enough to create half-knowledge?
   • Failing to revisit and practise what you once saw clearly?
4. Audit who’s driving your car.
   • Your awake consciousness steering?
   • Your subconscious at the wheel?
   • The collective (news, peers, culture) driving?
5. Choose one domain to put your awake consciousness in the driver’s seat.
   • How you consume information.
   • How you decide which worldview to apply in a complex decision.
   • “I am choosing to see this from a larger circle.”
   • “I am aware of the stop sign, and I’m still curious.”
6. Be honest about your scientific stop signs.
   • Your current methods cannot go further.
   • This is a method limit, not necessarily a reality limit.

Leaders don’t need to abandon science to do this.
They do need to:

• Understand where their methods stop.
• Allow room for experience beyond that.
• Be willing to update their worldview when it produces:
• More ethical behaviour.
• Better long-term decisions.
• A deeper sense of meaning.

You share roads with many cars.
You can’t control who is driving theirs.

You can, however, decide:

• Which bubble you mostly drive in.
• Who holds your wheel.
• And whether you are willing to expand your map enough to see that:

Red is not all there is.
Green includes it.

(This article was inspired by a Conscious Conversation with a dear friend & professional colleague on 24th January 2025.)(ID:CO|AF)