The Sanskrit term, samadhi, describes the meditative revelation of oneness with all that exists. We are interested in how coming to this universal realization with greater frequency will contribute to expanded consciousness between individuals. Humans have a long tradition of being wary of the unknown and resistant to change. Yet, with change as the common denominator for our radically divergent period of technological, scientific, and spiritual development, individuals and collectives are becoming more accepting of difference. In this more open common space, we hope humans will also be able to better harmonize the interconnected bonds between all life.
Unify: Subchapter I.
Individual & Collective Wellbeing
Individual & Collective Ecosystems
Rugged individualism might be a romantic notion, but ultimately a lonely one. At a time in which the global population is climbing toward nine billion, there’s not a lot of room to be alone. All the more reason to learn how to live together and honor unity within multiplicity.
“You are not just a drop in the ocean, you are the mighty ocean in the drop.” — Rumi
The ancient African concept of ubuntu can be translated to, “I am because we are”. This concept acknowledges the oneness of all that exists in various states of relationships. We are also well served to remember that we, as individuals, are actually many people at once. We can vary according to the state we’re in at any given moment. And that, like a crystal, each facet of a multi-dimensional person is vital to the overall integrity of the individual.
In the novel, A Wrinkle in Time, the book’s villain is IT, the hive mind that corrects all behavior that deviates from the established norm. This abandonment of self, and total submission to another authority, is a perennial threat to each of our rightful claims of authority over our own lives. Any coercive means of subjugating individuals to the controls of an external force—whether religious, governmental, or otherwise—is, without exception, wrong. Individuality is beautiful and biologically necessary. Our lives can, and should, have many parallels to the lives of others but, at the end of the day, we must ultimately continue along our individuated journeys as distinct waves of energy.
We feel it’s important to discern the significance of the individual in a rightful context of the collective. Free-market capitalism is quite contradictory in its treatment of the individual. As a theory, it conceptualizes us all as little autonomous units, making rational choices in our own self-interest. However, this is illusory. Consumer choice is not individuality. We are granted a paralyzingly vast range of choices within a suffocatingly small range of experience. Often, our mode of living is largely dictated from above by the institutional forces that control the flow of capital.
The “sovereign consumer” was a term initially proposed in 1936, by economist William Harold Hutt, suggesting that the ultimate source of authority over the market should be the individual choices of consumers. In this framework, the consumers are the “bosses” and they shape society by voting with their money, thereby participating in a permanent election. Historian Niklas Olsen deems the idea of the sovereign consumer as the key actor of neoliberalism. But the problems with this idea are fairly evident. First of all, any system that equates an unequally distributed resource (money) with voting, is inherently undemocratic. Secondly, nobody is born a natural participator in a market. They are taught the rules and the restrictions according to a certain order established long before they came into the world. Maintenance of a market order implies a type of coercion, most often perpetrated by those who benefit most from it.
Organizing ourselves around the principles of mutual aid is a way to reconcile individuality with collectivity. Mutual aid describes a form of voluntary exchange between parties in which all involved reap the benefits. Basically, mutual aid means cooperation. We can consider it the polar opposite of competition, the defining feature of today’s economy. There are several prerequisites to allow this type of unmediated cooperation to function well throughout society. There must be no institutionalized power imbalance. There must be no profit motive, in which one party accumulates more resources to the detriment of the other. It must occur in a context in which basic needs and civil rights are guaranteed to all. And finally, all participants must be free to represent themselves in the democratic process, as well as be given equal footing to do so.
People would be free to live as they pleased, provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. “Do no harm” is especially applicable as a mode of conduct in a society organized by mutual aid. Freed from coercion, all human activity would be truly voluntary. The rights of the individual could be fully expressed within this collective context. Working hours would be based upon need, not inflated to trigger growth. And all people would have real autonomy over how they choose to spend their valuable time.
Cooperation is by far humanity’s greatest strength. There is no aspect of capitalist competition that could not be achieved just as well through cooperation. Russian scientist and revolutionary, Peter Kropotkin, interpreted the evolutionary concept of “survival of the fittest” from a perspective that takes “fittest” to mean “most skilled at cooperation”. He argued that this skill amongst communities of animal species has historically been the greatest indication of successful survival and development. We have an innate talent for cooperation, but have organized our economy in a way that makes it difficult to practice. Relationships based on mutual aid have been integral to our ethical evolution and have the greatest potential to propel us ever further. We can elevate the importance of individuals by situating them within strong and supportive collectives.