OgEvolves - Charting the next revolution

Our interpretation of life always has a context. Not “life” as in, “What did you do today? How are you feeling?” but rather Life itself—the process and experience of being alive, the phenomenon that has perplexed every serious thinker throughout history.

Likewise, the “context” to which I refer is not that of a particular moment—say, you got mad because you and your mother had a rocky relationship in childhood—but one that runs much, much deeper.

The deepest context humans tend to ponder is that of creation itself. How did Life begin, what is it, and where is it going? Muslims, Jews, Christians, and secular humanists all have different interpretations—and those interpretations often lead to religious, ideological, and emotional conflict.

Historically, the Enlightenment represented the first major contextual shift in human consciousness since the emergence of the Great Religions. Of course, in modern times, many have chosen not to make that shift, but the Enlightenment transformed society despite the (still) enormous resistance.

I believe we’re in the process of undergoing another major contextual shift, one that goes beyond simple distinctions between groups and individuals. Consider that a amjor crux of social scientific theory is that very relationship between the individual and the group in society. Universal human rights, for example, is primarily an individualistic context: every human being, every individual, should have access to basic rights that provide “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” without restraint, so long as the pursuit doesn’t harm others.

Many disagree with the concept of universal human rights, even claiming that it is a imperialistic, externally imposed Western morality. Yet this question of “group vs. individual” is based entirely on the contexts that have already existed in human consciousness. Consider that human consciousness began with pre-group consciousness, that is, no socially formed, self-conscious identity. It then started to identify the individual with a group—in other words, the group, or tribe, and not the individual, was the primary unit of social organization. Post-Enlightenment, the individual became the fundamental vehicle for moral, economic, and political agency. (Some would posit, as did Rousseau, that pre-modern tribes, before civilization “ruined” them, were peaceful, harmonious, and enlightened; this is categorically false and has no empirical basis).

Most of the arguments in current international politics discourse concern this essential question of groups versus individuals: should tribes be given collective rights in modern society? When is it appropriate to grant states (read: group structures) sovereignty, and when should international security forces intervene (read: on behalf of individuals whose rights are being violated by that group structure)? Can we really live in a Western, individualistic society, where groups—families, tribes, religious organizations—have lower standing than individuals—and still find meaning and sanctity?

To answer those questions, we often look to the great philosophers of the past, and particularly those in the Enlightenment tradition. Well, I believe the answer to that questions lies in looking forward. Of course, we must stand on the shoulders of giants–I am not suggesting to jettison the modalities of thought that came before us–but can we really, as Einstein famously asked, solve the great problems of our world today from the same level of thinking, of consciousness, that created them?

Indeed, the Enlightenment philosophers–and politically, the Founding Fathers–had little historical precedent for their passion about human liberation. As Jeff Carreira said, the first conversations about human rights probably went something like, “Human beings should have… rights… wait… what? Human… beings… should… have… rights…. no, wait, that can’t be right.”

Something, some deeper level feeling, existed within those individuals who questioned the Church’s autocratic control over politics, culture, and the economy; the isolationist, mercantilist trade system; the atrocious human suffering and loss over seemingly antiquated religious and political concepts. Something stirred within their souls that said, “This isn’t right. There is more to go. Humanity [itself a new idea!] can be liberated from dogma; we can live in a just world.”

And so they compared the reality of their physical surroundings with their own longings for liberation, and experienced dissonance. That dissonance led to an idealism that had never before existed.

The impulse that led the Enlightenment philosophers to imagine an ideal world is the same impulse to which we have access at any given moment—right now, right here. It is, I believe, the Authentic Self seeking to create the world in its image. No individual owns it, and yet every individual can awaken to it. That’s what drove the Enlightenment then, and that’s what we need to awaken to now.

The contextual shift available to us now is not about the individual versus the group, but consciousness itself. That is, it is not a pre-individual regression to group consciousness, but rather a post-individual progression to consciousness awakening to itself.

That means we have to let go of the idea that we’re separate (not to say I have, but I do believe it’s needed desparately). The Old Enlightenment, I would propose, came about because consciousness was looking into its own experience at its corresponding level of development—which was the movement from collectivism to individualism. That movement led to human rights, liberal democracy, market economies.

Consciousness has evolved–and, because we are awakening to the notion that we are consciousness itself, that we are the cosmos in action, it is time to move beyond our attachment to being an individual and embody the evolutionary impulse itself, the cosmic process of development. This is the New Enlightenment, and, from what I can see, it is the next major contextual shift in human consciousness.

*Disclaimer: These are my thoughts only, and should not be considered representative of Andrew or any of the individuals mentioned above (yes, even Rousseau .