We-Space III: Eros and Evolution

Eros and Psyche

What is increasingly common among a global sampling of practitioners is that ingenuity, skill, intelligence, fearlessness and chance are conspiring in group settings to dissolve psychological barriers, heal social isolation, conditioning and the colonizing effect of modern society to access ever deeper levels of authenticity. Here, the creation of more complex mutual agreements reveal the workings of collective intelligence and push the frontier of inter-subjectivity. This is growing up.

The working definitions of We-Space and its relationship to psychological development, group process or “spiritual evolution” differ depending on who’s talking. These differences seem to depend on the complexity and depth of psychological and linguistic agreements arising among participants or whether the inter-subjective space moves from the relative space of familiar psychological content into an entirely different (absolute) spiritual or philosophical context.

So far I have not encountered a uniform clarity or critical attention paid to the specific question of whether the spiritual context of We-Space is intrinsic or not. Again, depending on who’s talking, one might hear a casual reference to it as a pre-existing (absolute) condition–already true–in which every human or, for that matter, sentient relationship is already “cooking,” so to speak. Others might make equally casual references to the term as a general reference to deliberately fine tuned qualities of attention, presence and consciousness in group situations creating something not previously existent. This is what I would call “improving samsara.” It’s important to examine the language we use and carefully choose words to describe what we mean by the term We-Space as it is language itself that keeps us in the linguistic prison of separation. The question is, what is it about these inter-subjective experiences that advances human consciousness or evolution? Is it recovering existing nature or is it something new?

Why does this even matter? In pre-egoic primitive or tribal cultures, the social matrix in which subjects with limited interiority (sense of self or individuality) lived was already inter-subjective. Today’s mass culture both demands and facilitates that we become increasingly individualized. That sense of self is perpetually reinforced; we are driven to satisfy the appetites of individuality (whether artificially induced, useful or even healthy) to such a degree that the inter-subjective matrix has been actively suppressed. Collectivism in any form is anathema to libertarian and corporate ideologues.

To be conscious meant that two or more people were privy to some item of knowledge not available to others outside the privileged circle. In this sense, “consciousness” is similar to “conspire” (to “breathe with” others).  ——De Quincey, p. 149

Inter-subjectivity in its simplest form is an agreement between people, from the most superficial to the most profound, even to the metaphysical–or even to ignore it altogether. The very term implies interaction from the position of one’s own subjective experience with the subjective experience of another. In a sense, inter-subjective presupposes a mutual affirmation of each other as “others,” as objects separate from one’s self.

That we can now refer casually, after a century, to the metaphysical potentials of the inter-subjective field is evidence of an evolutionary turn toward re-acquaintance with the root definition of consciousness: “knowing with” or “breathing together.” In exploring the full depth of group agreements, I am not regarding We-Space as a synonym for generic inter-subjectivity. At a neuro-psychological level, entering inter-subjective space may activate mirror neurons as simulations are formed in our own minds about what is being simulated in other’s minds. Further on, engaging in dyadic or small group simulations bring us to higher levels and more complex agreements about reality, coherence, what phenomena are important and why.

I am applying the term We-Space to a more specific quality of inter-subjectivity in which the context shifts from psychological to spiritual or philosophical, waking up. This is the inter-subjective frontier (entering absolute space in which “I” is less defined), bearing fruit either by plodding steps or great leaps toward non-conceptual, unitary awareness. We are not creating a field of collective intelligence. We are discovering it anew; it is the true context of the agreements by which we live.

Spirit is not in the I, but between I and You– Martin Buber, 1970, I and Thou, p. 89).

In a growing number of circumstances, with an increasing number of adept leaders, it is apparent that still deeper, trans-egoic levels of engagement (a temporary abatement of the super-ego) are possible and, as we assimilate their meaning and potential, learning how to access them is increasingly necessary. To suggest that these qualities of attention are inherent is an easy reach.

This also matters because the momentum of communal engagement is pushing the frontier of the definition of “human nature.” Evoking We-Space is not a quirk, an easily dismissed popular phenomenon artfully constructed by self-interested entrepreneurs. It is a blossoming, increasingly elaborate and significant deep-dive into our true nature in parallel with the solitary orientation and practices of contemplative traditions.

Practitioners in this field may be tempted to say that I am jumping the gun, that practice precedes theory. Perhaps they are justified. Yet ironically, suggesting the exploration of inter-subjective space is a practice lacking a fully formed theoretical foundation is to overlook myth, psychology and modern philosophy.

At the mythic level, cultivating inter-subjective space is an entirely erotic adventure in the most comprehensive sense. Eros is an impulse to move toward, to unite, create and discover. It is ongoing, never absent. It is not conceptual, rational, linear, exclusive or limited. One might say it’s a universal character of sentience, a longing for connection and belonging. It’s not solely a human trait or source of action. It is life living itself, driven by a uniform and unchanging principle. Eros doesn’t know about ego or practicality, about individual conditioning, trauma, psychological or physical wounds. It can be denied and ignored, but it cannot be turned off. It is adaptable to every circumstance and always creatively responding to any limits being placed upon it.

The universe is a communion of subjects, not a collection of objects.—Thomas Berry

The perpetual longing for union arises from an equally perpetual differentiation of matter and consciousness. From that differentiation arises subjectivity.  Thomas Berry defined differentiation, subjectivity (“differentiation-integration”-Wilbur) and communion (“transcendence and inclusion”-Wilbur) as the constant and cyclic primordial intentions of evolution, infinite spontaneous acts of creation, the continuous distinctive separation of entities: the erotic principle, longing for creation and longing for union.

If we were taking about human beings, we would be calling differentiation the assumption (reification) of unique identity, followed by a self-awareness and orientation (interiority) that characterizes subjectivity, the realization of self, self as distinct from other. In Buddhism this is regarded as a fundamental confusion: the root of suffering. When we engage in We-Space practices, we are addressing and unraveling  human suffering. By assisting each other in eliminating successive filters from our view, we approach a collective version of the absolute view.

People initially entering group process, whether it is Circling, HeartIQ, the Evolutionary Collective or perhaps especially the space of Surrendered Leadership, may have no clue what to expect. What may initially happen, a first stage, is the revelation of differentiation in the deep dive into one’s own interiority, the elaboration of the diversity of individuals engaged in the process. But as the character of the process cycles deeper and further toward We-Space, the dynamic of differentiation can become exquisitely poignant in moments of dissolution. The evolutionary process itself emerges and participants may find themselves both completely present (in a trans-egoic state) as well as being in awe of that presence in self and others.

We-Space then becomes a condition of standing fully within the paradox of differentiation and subjectivity, experiencing a unique creation of one’s own identity, while simultaneously having a transcendent experience of all “others” as subjects, virtually undifferentiated from and fully connected with oneself. For a group of diverse subjects initially experiencing others as objects to undergo a transformation of group consciousness such that all objects disappear into a continuum of subjects is what Thomas Berry would call communion.

According to De Quincey’s most radical definition of intersubjectivity, the mutual structural coupling of already existing experiencing subjects, where the interiorities of the participating subjects are interdependently shaped by their interaction, the co-creation of the space is based on the relationships of the participants, co-emergence and co-arising move into a condition of inter-subjectivity preceding subjectivity.

We-Space communion is a shift from the psychological context of co-creating subjects to one in which the primary relationship is with the group. Interiority emerges from group process, not vice versa. The group becomes an organism. —shifting from “I am creating you” to “you are creating me” to an entirely different context: an agreement that neither is creating the other, that both are in creation in a context yet to be named, fully plumbed or understood.

The primordially erotic nature of such differentiation, subjectivity and communion never abates. Dissonance, conflict or irritation might precipitate a temporary (and necessary) recapitulation of “self” as a conscious or unconscious act of differentiation. The quality of leadership—or surrendered leadership—in this context determines how the condition of  union evolves further.

Does inter-subjectivity actually create individual subjectivities, is it ontologically primary, or does inter-subjectivity presuppose already existing centers of subjectivity?

–De Quincey

As I inferred above, Quincey is postulating that the most advanced states of inter-subjectivity call into question whether subjects come before or after the inter-subjective experience. In this state, there is no clarity about the ontological relationship between the whole and the part (Am I creating you? Are you creating me? Are we both being created by something that is neither you nor me?).

In Vajrayana Buddhism, there is no uncertainty about this question. All subjects appear spontaneously from the primary (erotic?) communion of dependent co-arising within a timeless ground that arises without cause and has no characteristics. It is neither subjective nor inter-subjective, nor indeed, anything at all. This is a somewhat modified definition of the Basic Space of Phenomena — the substrate of consciousness underlying the entire matrix of dependent co-emergence. Here, inter-subjectivity pre-exists all subjects. Things do not “exist” on their own.

The magic of discovering something new always trumps the security of existing knowledge.– SeanWilkinson, Circling Europe

Thus, We-Space is (becoming) a practical definition we may apply to a shift from subjects cultivating a high degree of agreement based on physical and linguistic signals to a shared (non-conceptual) condition in which the ontological relationship between subjects and the inter-subjective space is much less clear. In this communal space, subjects inevitably do experience interiority, yet it becomes a much less reified condition, arising and disappearing more spontaneously as one’s attachment to the idea of a distinct–and fixed–identity softens. In this space, reification/interiority appears with increasing subtlety, as subjectivity enters a natural and organic ongoing flow of differentiation, in which releasing into a less differentiated communal experience becomes far more accessible.

Similarly, the primary (erotic) motivations of evolution are all operating in this condition of We-Space in simultaneous, integral non-linear fashion, each moment a transition into and through the other conditions. We-Space could be called a primary experience of evolution. Its unitary character is its spiritual dimension.

There is something about the nature of consciousness, it seems, that requires the presence of the “other” as another subject that can acknowledge my being. (When I experience myself being experienced by you, my experience of myself—and of you—is profoundly enriched, and, in some encounters, even “transformed.”) Quincey, p.148

Everything exists in relationship. Consciousness is the communal experience of “knowing with” others. Inter-subjectivity exists independent of and precedes subjectivity. We-Space is a (still emerging) collective version of reality sought by individual spiritual practitioners for centuries, the emptiness of self. In that sense, perhaps we can be clear: “we” comes before “I.” We is already true.

 

 

We-Space II: Supernormal States

Signs of intersubjective entry into the We-Space Sangha.

The yoga of intersubjectivity in all its forms is yielding information and learning at new levels of consciousness and in new configurations of field phenomena. If an individual awakening process is any guide to the nature of collective awakening experience, we would have to consider including the possibility that the nature of intersubjective space mirrors and eventually yields phenomena and capacities similar to those arising from concentrated and prolonged personal practice. The recognition and interpretation of such phenomena as nyams or even supernormal perceptual states might well also yield a database of experience, though great care must be taken to avoid regarding these states themselves as fruition.

First, so much of the lingo of We-Space exploration is about presence: mindful presence, radical presence, etc. The moment we assign a label to presence as a state, as soon as “presence” becomes a capacity or skill, it is reified. Any concept of presence (referencing  time) that doesn’t regard time as merely another form of perception or that presumes the existence of an identifiable basic unit is flawed, or is at least a captive of flawed linguistics.

There is no such thing as a unit of time in any absolute sense. Since that is the case, we must define “presence” as resembling something more like absence. That is, an un-reified vastly spacious awareness that has loosened attachment to and is no longer in the tight grip of a specific identity: one so expansive that “embodiment” implies a limitation, so permeable that emotional states, the ambient phenomena of a group process, no longer  impede the flow of authentic connection. Temporarily at least, one is so completely “here” that time stands still. At the same time, no one is home. Similar to the conditions of advanced meditative practice, the ego has been rendered quiescent. One remains in a non-conceptual state. There is nothing to reify.

Woody Allen once famously said, “Time is nature’s way of preventing everything from happening all at once.” From the dualistic view in which subject and object exist, we can only imagine “everything” as discrete events, jumbled together without order, arising in random fashion, crowding each other out, competing for “space” in the arising and disappearing chaos of phenomena, all competing for attention. The dualistic view is  that this competition appears as the constant arising of sense perception, the evaluation of that perception, becoming thoughts in relation to the timing of “events” that we perceive or imagine to exist.

But awakened mind is not just another unconventional and unfamiliar form of time in which “events” occur. There is no sequence of events. There are no events. It is time-less. There are no discrete moments. There is no present, no past, no future; no procession from one thing to another. There is only what is-now-which is changing constantly.

The term beginningless time is a conception arising from within our limited view of reality, our conditioned view, intrinsically based in time. Normally, we are not capable of another view. The reality of awakening mind lives outside of time. It permeates the construction we call time and it is not time bound at all. Then again, neither is it other than time. Wherever you are standing, you do not do so for “moments”—or for any single moment. You are standing there in and with your entire life, without beginning or end; you may imagine yourself to be in a discrete “event,” yet you are not separate from any other event.

The discipline we apply to the development of attention, to resting in a quality of effortlessness in our daily existence and to the attention we bring to the activity of mind all seems to be limited by the reality of samsara itself, the fundamental limitations to which we are helplessly subject. That limitation is time. And…it is also timeless.

The more we awaken, the more we learn about the terms of samsara and our condition, the more we might come to regard our predicament as a perpetual purgatory, which is in every instant both timeless, with all events happening simultaneously, and a time bound condition over which we seem to have little if any control. Any collective process identifying as a vehicle of awakening, in particular the Surrendered Leadership experience of Circling Europe, will, if the right conditions are cultivated, eventually test the grip of the conventional experience of time. To the extent that a group might experience an altered experience of time, it would have to be regarded as a supernormal state.

A second feature of supernormal collective activity might manifest as transient clairvoyance (sensing a future event) or clairsentience (experiencing someone else’s reality in the past, present or future). Functional telepathy might also be a general way of categorizing supernormal phenomena arising from long-term intentional co-creative practice. Knowing what someone else is thinking, anticipating an appearance, a communication, an unusual ideation, simultaneous events or any phenomena occurring between participants separated by great distance

These states might appear to individuals or small groups, anything up to and including the entire group having a common experience, simultaneously experiencing an emotion or sharing a vision, a visitation, a premonition or gaining intuitive insight into the nature and process of an individual or the group as a whole. Such events might appear as dreams, waking images, bodily sensations or powerful emotions. Recognizing such possibilities will be important conditioning mitigating reflexive discounting or disregard for transient states. Sharing information about such phenomena has the potential to further elevate the level of coherence that is already emerging.

Progress resulting from collective We-Space practices may appear in many and unexpected forms. Cultivating the subtle capacities of our interior life that relate to our mental, emotional, intuitive and spiritual landscape and how we perceive one another—cultivating a grounded and rooted relational capacity is the foundation of every viable We-Space. But it all comes fraught with the same caveats that might apply to the results of any solitary practice. Any group declaring its purpose to be a group awakening beyond the existing limits of grip process is already inciting perceptual bias and unwarranted expectations that will may guarantee failure or at least delay.

There will be a natural tendency of any group detecting signs of collective “awakening,” however they may have arisen, to conceptualize the incubation process, codifying the pathway and limiting the essential open curiosity that probably led to such events in the first place. Such efforts can also become conceptual digressions from what may have been an entirely spontaneous process that may require much more investigation before adopting a formula for its reproduction. In short, there is no linear formula. The more trying, the less arrival. The more looking, the less finding.  Experiences of group opening, especially supernormal states, are created by resonance, not by conceptual practice.

 

The proper response to the emergence of unusual collective phenomena is to remain on the path that got you where you are, not to digress or fall into conceptual traps with it, focusing on a future that doesn’t exist. Focus must remain in the present, which also doesn’t exist, but it’s all we’ve got. These admonitions would apply to individual practice as much as to a group.
The fact that episodes of unexpected collective non-dual consciousness have occurred is a sign that something unusual can indeed happen among groups of people who have sufficiently whittled away at the influence of ego-centered control strategies and entered into powerful practices to sharpen their perceptual skills, feeling everything and rejecting nothing with an attentive and open and exploratory mind.
The technologies that serve as a platform for such collective emergence are gathering quickly. They appear to converge toward traditional tantric practice that regards the present moment as the engine of awakening. Everything becomes a doorway into deeper connection and an enhancement of We-Space. The transcendent is always intrinsic to the prosaic, however ecstatic or painful it may be. It is there in every moment, whether in the experience of deep feeling, exposing the root of suffering, acknowledging the presence and inevitability of death, struggling with resistance or guarding or transparency.
The evolved We-Space is not only one in which the individuals can give presence to the transcendent but also one in which all the barriers and and blocks that individuals construct can be named and seen and forgiven. Learning to recognize the glimmers of fruition in every bump, ever obstacle, every personal and interpersonal challenge is to realize the unity of ground, path and fruition ever more skillfully and completely, bringing us closer to the full expression of the We-Space Sangha.

We-Space: The Next Buddha

We-Space is a term for the deepening experience of collective field phenomena occurring in groups. It may be called collective intelligence, an energetic manifestation of the resonance occurring among the participants in an increasingly intimate group process. Whether “we-space” pre-exists or is evoked by a group process, is psychological or spiritual or evolutionary in nature depends on who you talk to. There are numerous processes included under the generic term and there are numerous purposes to which We-Space is being developed and directed. Based on what I have learned so far, the full potential of We-Space remains unexplored and virtually unlimited.

The vision of We-Space expressed here will not reflect a very deep comprehension of formal Integral theory or reference its hierarchies of evolutionary development. Like Michael Brabant, for example, I may diverge from the existing framework to explore the potential of We-Space to facilitate direct non-conceptual experience, to manifest supernormal states, to function as a matrix connecting diverse collective awakening practices, to highlight the limits of-if not overthrow-the dominant paradigm of scientific materialism. But that is the grand design, is it not? Based on personal study and practice, intuition, direct experience and contemplating the implications of what is described by many participants in the recent We-Space Summit, I think it’s possible to outline a few characteristics of this intelligence.

The threads of We-Space development and interpretations are analogous to the proliferation of long-term generative practices of different lineages of spiritual practice or to the parallel development of religious or sacred philosophies. But particularly now, they seem to be exploding out of a rapidly growing knowledge base resulting from deep and creative explorations that began five decades ago in the earliest explorations of group process.

We can easily acknowledge the contributions made by each of these lineages over a considerable period of time to the evolution of the whole. We can select personal practices from the buffet or immerse ourselves deeply in a single path. But developing a common understanding of the context in which all these processes are arising and flowering also serves and energizes the whole in ways that are already bearing magnificent and unexpected fruit.

Evolutionary Spirituality identifies itself as generic, stripped of jargon, cultural trappings and formal rituals of organized religion. It identifies as evolutionary as if it is unveiling and accelerating the evolution of human consciousness into a  universal embodiment of We-Space. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of the long-term enjoyed by similar inquiries taking place over the past 1200 years, for example, within Mahayana Buddhism alone (or much longer in the case of other religious traditions), which to my knowledge is the most extensive documented inquiry into the science of mind. We are facing a far greater urgency, a looming existential condition characterized by overpopulation,  planetary resource depletion and climate change, combined with rapidly evolving and energizing cross-pollination of sacred philosophies in search of keys to advancing human evolution, changing the course of human development from its current self-destructive path.

Thich Nhat Hanh’s well known declaration, “The next buddha will be a sangha” applies here. His vision may have been driven by the perfusion of evolutionary philosophies across global culture concurrent with a struggle to redefine governance, economics and spirituality in humanist terms. To apply this vision to the ongoing development of We-Space is probably not novel. Considering its implied parameters in greater detail might seem ambitious, yet to do so is an acknowledgement of an obvious and natural objective: organic openings such as the Patricia Albere’s Evolutionary Collective, even going beyond powerful preliminaries such as Tej Steiner’s Core Life Skills, Circling, Christian Pankhurst’s HeartIQ, Thomas Hubl’s Transparent Communication, Surrendered Leadership and other approaches to recognizing interpersonal field phenomena and the development of authentic relationship and radical presence as preparation for and enhancement of We-Space. These do contribute to widespread and growing evidence of collective efforts to embody critical evolutionary change, leveraging the impulse to evolve to a widening audience.

Since there’s plenty of room for interpretation, I will try to be clear about Hanh’s references to Buddha and sangha. Referring to the “next Buddha” is not a reference to a historical figure. “Buddha” refers to a state of awareness, not to an individual. That state of awareness may be called Buddha nature, primordial awareness, non-dual consciousness, spontaneous presence, the ground of reality or rigpa. Further, all phenomena arise spontaneously from the primordial (non-dual) ground. The essence nature of all appearance is not other than this non-conceptual, empty and supremely spacious presence that has no beginning, no end, is unconditioned and utterly insubstantial. In fact, to say this “condition” is the ground of reality is an oxymoron. Reality is not conditional. Its essence is nothing at all.

So, how can the next Buddha be nothing at all? A sangha is a community of practice. Superficially, the next Buddha will be a community of awakening individuals, as Dustin Diperna suggests, sufficiently capable of subsuming personal ego concerns and propagating the nature of collective reality such as to be regarded as leaders with a common vision and an approach to awakening. Imagine the simultaneous poly-centric emergence of key learnings that together comprise a distributed yet wholly coherent network of awareness. Each taken separately might not fit the criteria of true non-conceptual awareness, yet together they might well express something far more powerful.

The members of such a sangha needn’t be in geographic proximity or deliberately in coordinated action. They may not even need to know each other, though identifying and naming such a sangha would be a significant moment of progress. Imagining a community redefining authentic Buddha-nature as a field of collective influence is an explosive suggestion that a world-view growing from a spirituality of the near-future, if we are to survive, will be leaderless in the conventional sense, manifesting as a shared non-conceptual unconditioned conscious transmission and propagation of the essence of its liberating nature.

At the deepest level, however, identifying a sangha as a “Buddha” implies that it will embody elements of collective awakening closely aligning with or even identical to the state of awakening achieved by the historical Buddha, which is to say a collective experience of directly embodied non-dual pure awareness in which barriers between subject and object effectively dissolve into a common experience of unitary consciousness. Such a state implies a capacity to transcend apparent paradox: the conceptual and the non-conceptual, duality and non-duality, personal agency versus being a “channel” of some extra-corporeal intelligence, accepting “what is” versus having an agenda for change, realizing the truth of appearance as well as the insubstantial nature of all appearance.

It’s also important to differentiate the unique and rapidly fluctuating time-bound and conceptual We-Space created by any group from an absolute timeless and non-conceptual essence of We-Space that exists regardless of who is engaged, yet not identified with anyone in particular. The journey of any group (sangha) deliberately exploring We-Space will eventually be to transition from its relative forms to a realization of its absolute qualities. This process will require intensive, prolonged and coherent practice, timely and creative exploration of inner space never before navigated. At some point, however, two things will become evident: 1) it very much matters who is present as individuals in the process cannot simply be randomly interchanged with an expectation of arriving at identical results; and 2) the inward turning of the group to the intersubjective space must eventually turn outward toward service.

Such a collective achievement might also model a natural integration of requisite components of an awakened state; specifically, both absolute and relative bodhicitta and the development of a collective version of bodhisattva expression in the world. This is analogous to saying that the next Buddha (Sangha) will achieve an integral state of Being and Doing, demonstrating that neither are seen as opposite sides of an hypothetical coin, but that each becomes indistinguishable from the other.

What is traditionally represented in some branches of Buddhism as an ultimate state of consciousness requiring numberless lifetimes of arduous karmic resolution to achieve is, according to Dzogchen practices of the Great Perfection, within reach in a single lifetime. There is no timeline attached to Thich Nhat Hanh’s vision; let’s just say that, for those who wish to see the human experiment continue, and assuming the conditions for such a transition, even if only on the smallest of scales, can be created, there’s no time to waste.

The following is a partial list of potential characteristics of authentic non-dual We-Space:

  • Absolute We-Space is present whether it is realized or not. It already exists whether one believes in it, has experienced it or not. It is always here. It is never not here. It is implicit in every moment. Absolute We-Space is not a product of me or of you. It arises as us yet is also inherently something greater. It does not belong to any one, any group or any thing. We belong to it.
  • We-space is not an object to be cultivated. Talking about it as if it is a separate phenomenon or as something that is either here or not here only reinforces the dualistic thinking that makes it more difficult for us to recognize and enter authentic non-dual (absolute) We-Space.
  • In relative (dualistic) We-Space, objects (“others”) appear to be real, yet are entirely projections according to our individual experience and conditioning. At all times, I am creating “you.” “You” are creating me. The objective of an evolutionary process of revealing We-Space is to unravel the projections until they either dissolve or become transparent.
  • Individualism/personal autonomy/personal agency are illusions, rooted in conceptual mind. They all refer to presumed boundaries between one identity and another. The We-Space Sangha is a deliberate creation of conditions in which boundaries, erected according to conditioning, experience, religious norms and economic assumptions, can be reconsidered. This is partly a matter of neurophysiology and partly of cultural and economic colonization. The authentic Sangha of We-Space challenges every social, religious, ideological and economic structure. In order to realize full communion and full autonomy of every individual, decolonization must be teased away from neurophysiology.
  • An enhanced emotional connection between separate individuals, i.e. an improvement of samsara, is a valid objective of We-Space inquiry, but is not the ultimate objective. We-Space may be accessed by cognitive decisions to enter into a mutuality of increased permission between two or more identities, but if we are to enter the Sangha of We-Space, we do not drop deeper into our identities. We drop out of them more completely; we commit acts of release beyond any we may have previously imagined, literally cutting through the grip of the separate time-based karmic identity, perhaps not absolutely and not permanently, but at least enough for us to see the totality and potential of our co-creation.
  • We do have to come into a personal We-Space before entering collective We-Space. We have to be comfortable with recognizing our essential poverty, experiencing ourselves as naked; becoming more comfortable and secure in our own nakedness before we are able to share naked reality with each other. The field quality that awakens such a degree of safety is the act of dropping our attachment to a separate identity. This might be compared to a personal mindfulness practice that precedes our capacity to enter a group mindfulness practice.
  • In We-space, all feelings, conditioning, reticence and emotional guarding are viewed from a more neutral, less ego-invested quality of presence. We cultivate together the capacity to reduce our need to protect our selves; that need itself becomes just another thread of the interactional dynamics that might be experienced, shared and examined. We sense a greater access to and a reduced influence of emotional material that reinforces tendencies to regard our selves as separate identities. In We-Space, with intelligence and a shared willingness to be more vulnerable, we can assist one another to come closer to our core conditioning that represents a barrier to entry into We-Space in the first place.
  • Leadership is a transitional identification of a single or group of individuals whose reliable inquiry into collective We-Space shows evidence of fruition. If this occurs, the essence nature of We-Space empowers others to examine and reflect on their own participation and become empowered to model We-Space as well. In other words, a “leader” is identified as a transmitter, perhaps as a gateway for the group into non-conceptual mind. The objective of the process is the propagation of that transmission, making everyone a leader. The more people can become this, the more we accelerate toward a critical mass of humanity realizing and becoming empowered to recognize and enter relative We-Space, to engage in We-Space communication with others, realizing that ultimately, We-Space is not about following single leaders or becoming a leader, but in sharing an empowering vision that facilitates confident expression of temporary and progressive integrative leadership emerging as the We-Space Sangha.
  • Inasmuch as “leaders” identifying with specific traditions or philosophies exert influence within a matrix of diverse approaches to awakening, the force that supports the integrity of that matrix is their own integrity and momentum toward diversification within their chosen traditions. Holding a particular approach to awakened knowledge combined with the gravitational influence provided by similar figures operating in their own orbits both retains the integrity of their knowledge base as well as contributes to the creation of new information driving the evolution of the matrix as a whole.
  • We-Space is part of an evolutionary move away from post-modern culture driven by individualism and toward enhanced collective consciousness and collective action. We shouldn’t be naive about the economic, political and religious forces arrayed against such a movement. We are in an increasingly intense confrontation with powerful forces of libertarian individualism, self-interested Austrian economic theory and radical Calvinist religious ideologies. As a corollary to Thich Nhat Hanh’s vision, the transition to Sangha implies this critical shift toward revealing the nature of collective mind, collective development and action. In Buddhist terms, We-Space is, by inspiring an intention to awaken collectively, shifting from “me” to “we.” If it is authentic, it will inspire the awakening of compassion, generosity and action characteristic of the bodhisattva spirit.

The next Buddha may not be an exclusive or isolated sangha, a group of awakening beings from different traditions and different cultures, but an inclusive, possibly  distributed Sangha, holding the collective space for awakening by its coherence and the integrity of inherent confidence. The “we” is (or can be) the cracking of the egg in which we all exist, from which leaders/teachers will emerge, the awakened ones or the ones on their way who have previously been isolated from each other by sectarian and economic structures that isolate us and incentivize individualism.

The magic that cuts through the proliferation of approaches to realizing and engaging in We-Space and the increasing differentiation of individuals engaged in those processes is surely in part the acceptance of our individual uniqueness, but is also the revelation of what we share: our common human suffering. The unique nature of each individual’s version of dealing with suffering is what both keeps us apart and also what binds us together. We-Space is a hugely promising emerging vehicle for realizing Buddha’s Third Noble Truth, that there is a way out of suffering. To the degree that groups can mid-wife, witness, honor, share and resolve the common nature of our individual paths through life, enhancing the collective field in which we exist and evolve, We-Space moves ever closer to becoming Thich Nhat Hanh’s next Buddha.