Toward a Deeper, More Practical, and Urgently Needed Understanding of "The Collective"
Roger Nelson, John Hagelin: you're up.
I feel like we’re rapidly nearing an era of exponentially increased awareness. I don’t exactly know what I mean when I say that, but I’ll try to explain.
I don’t mean increased awareness on any specific topic. That is, increased awareness of ALS research, increased awareness of fascist rhetoric, increased awareness of volcanic activity around the planet. Not that. Just increased awareness. Of yourself, other humans, and the various relationships interwoven between the two. Of the depth and breadth and importance of those relationships. Awareness of “the collective.” In other words, Self-awareness—with a big ‘S.’
Why this prediction? Well, the mainstream scientific/academic world(s) may soon ask us to accept that consciousness is a primary aspect of reality (as opposed to a product of Darwinian evolution). If so—and it appears inevitable—we will immediately, by definition, become more aware (per capita) of our own awareness. I have no idea what happens when humans writ large suddenly become more aware of themselves, but I’m excited to be alive during a period where we’re likely to witness it.
Such a scenario will invariably mean we’ll have some important and cool things to think about and discuss. These things will necessarily be more important than our jobs, our taxes, or our politics. I don’t say that to be dismissive or reductive—going to work and paying taxes will certainly remain important (at least at first). I just say it as a statement of simple fact—it will be less important than sorting out the gigantic philosophical matter at hand. The implications involved with this kind of paradigm shift are directly relevant at the species level, meaning we all have to share ownership. And that starts with talking about it. Of course, it can be difficult to conceptualize something so abstract. So how can we talk/think about it practically?
Maharishi and the GCP
Two particularly striking (to me, anyway) examples of empirical data which point to evidence of collective human consciousness are as follows: the Global Consciousness Project (GCP), a still-ongoing, Princeton-affiliated experiment which began in 1998, and the Maharishi Effect demonstrations of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. As far as I can tell nobody has, as of yet, undertook an in-depth exploration of the connections between these two, which is a shame because there are some fascinating parallels. Perhaps I’ll write about them at length eventually.
For now I’ll just say that both experiments seem to be pointing at the same principle, though they capture it from different angles. These multiple angles, in my opinion, reveal the beginnings of what could become a useful model for understanding how to intentionally stimulate/leverage the collective consciousness to our advantage. And to be clear, when I say “our” I’m referring to humanity at large—not any given individual, organizational, or national entity. In other words, this principle does, and indeed should, transcend self-centered, emotional, ideological and/or financial agendas, which we all have. Attention is a moral act, and as such if we start manipulating collective attention we damn sure better do it morally (think where we might be if modern media companies genuinely respected this concept). More on this later.
Back to the principle at hand: if consciousness is indeed a field, then it appears that field can be intentionally affected by concentrated attention. That attention can be spread broadly across the world, as in the case of global events which receive concentrated, universal coverage. This is what the GCP measures. Their data from 9/11 is a particularly eye-popping example of how broad attention registers measurable physical effects (specifically on random number generators, or RNGs).
It can also be concentrated in smaller batches of people, given that those people are capable of directing their attention deeply inward, as in the case of meditation. Diving, as it were, deep into the unconscious realm and interacting with the consciousness field in a more direct fashion. This is what the Maharishi Effect measures. The data from a 1993 experiment in Washington DC is perhaps their most eye-popping (though certainly not the only) example.
In either case, the key driver is concentrated (as in “concentrated orange juice”) attention—whether external/broad or internal/deep—and the key effect is a sort of quantifiable factor of “coherence,” which the GCP measures via RNGs and the Maharishi Effect captures through sociological metrics (like crime rate, traffic accidents, and other quality of life indicators).
Here we begin to see the formation of the model. That model could theoretically be summed up in the following “equation”: more synchronized attention = more collective coherence. What really excites me about mapping the GCP and Maharishi Effect experiments over one another is that, in addition to revealing this pattern, they also reveal a glaring, potentially fruitful, and as-of-yet unexplored area of inquiry. The GCP demonstrates one end of the affective spectrum: external/broad attention. The Maharishi Effect demonstrates its inverse: internal/deep. But what about internal/broad?
Earlier I said “I have no idea what happens when humans writ large suddenly become more aware of themselves.” Another way of saying that could be: what happens when we start to explore the internal/broad mode of self-awareness? And could a wide, public, viral announcement of the existence of collective consciousness trigger it?
Philosphizin’
If so, and if the singularity of realization (i.e., revelation) is imminent, we’re going to have to figure a few things out. We’ll have to start asking questions like “what, exactly, is ‘the collective?’” What do we mean by that term? Is it just collective consciousness? As in, a sort of collective “mood” we all swim in? Or is it deeper than that? Is ‘the collective’ like our version of an ant queen, subtly dictating our motivations? Does it include animals too? Plants? Weather? Jungian archetypes? Is it Sheldrake’s "morphic resonance?” Could matter itself be collectively constructed through some unfathomably complicated quantum process? I have my own model of understanding these types of questions, but I’m not here to sell you on that model. All I’m selling today are the questions themselves.
Perhaps most pertinent is the following question: if everything is a collective pool of consciousness, then how exactly do individual emotions, thoughts, and intentions—in other words, how does individual attention—contribute to this pool? How much does what we think about and feel matter? Especially interesting is to consider instances wherein we don’t act on it. In our civilization we tend to think only action matters. This concept is well-reflected in our language. “Actions speak louder than words,” “Talk is cheap,” “Fuck your feelings.” Those sentiments will need re-assessing if it turns out we can measure the effects of thoughts and emotions on the collective.
The role of individual outlook in affecting the collective world is one I often come back to. If our outlook, whether emotional, cognitive, or embodied, is somehow contributing energetically to the larger world, which it appears to be, suddenly those of us who struggle with depression, anxiety, despair, fear, anger, and sadness need to start wondering whether we owe it to more people than just ourselves and our immediate social circles to get better. We may well owe it to the world. Of course, it’s not so easy to just “get better.” But in this new, forthcoming paradigm of consciousness-over-matter, I suspect that mental health might be a little easier to come by. In a world where attention matters, it’s imperative to question where that attention is anchored. I’ll explain what I mean.
Anchors Aweigh!
First of all, if you’re happy—authentically happy (what Maslow would call “self-actualized”)—then stay there. Don’t change a thing. But remember that happy and comfortable are not the same thing. I only say that because I’ve confused the two more times than I can count. I still do all the time.
But if you’re not happy, I’d say there’s little use in chasing that happiness by trying to be “normal.” If we’re on the civilizational track that I think we’re on, that word will soon be meaningless anyway. But to be clear, I’m not suggesting you start foaming at the mouth, either. Running around screaming “THIS ISN’T NORMAL!!!” will only frighten people and make them cling even more deeply to old, rotting patterns.
Indeed, fear in general won’t help anything. It never does. It can’t. Neither will anger, for that matter. Nor revenge (nor its passive-aggressive cousin, the withholding of forgiveness). Nor violence. Nor even impatience.
Instead, I encourage you to sink your teeth into the non-normal. Find a rabbit hole that you like, figure out a positive way to spin it, anchor it as deeply as you possibly can, and pursue it. And please, I beg you, keep your attention anchored at least as deep as the level of humanity. If you prefer to go deeper (e.g. Planet Earth, all living species, God, etc.), by all means please do. But don’t go any shallower than the species level. We have to stop anchoring our attention in the pursuit of self-comforts and/or the avoidance of fear. Please don’t take that as preachy, I’m talking to myself just as much as I’m talking to you. Even more so, actually. But in general, we all need to grow up.
Obviously the rabbit hole I chose was consciousness and, like all rabbit holes, the world of consciousness has no shortage of detours and off-ramps leading in all sorts of bizarre directions. This is what I mean about the importance of anchoring. When exploring rabbit holes, whether they involve deep philosophical quandaries or any other similarly juicy topic, like conspiracy theories, the common thread is they always start off as exciting and interesting but can quickly lead to dark, depressing, destabilizing places.
So the dominant question, as I see it, should be “how can this topic assist, or even celebrate, humanity?” As for me and consciousness, I bounced around in simulation theory for awhile, pondering whether I live in The Matrix, servicing some elite class with my enslaved energy (i.e., self-centered pessimism). Then I swung hard in the other direction for a time, fantasizing about joining an ashram and meditating for hours a day in search of enlightening my consciousness (i.e., self-centered optimism). But in either case, over time, and due to my anchor, I’d always swing back towards the middle (i.e., some version of optimism for humanity). It doesn’t mean those other pursuits weren’t interesting or valid, it just means they didn’t seem to be particularly helpful.
That’s how, in the great Plinko Board that is the rabbit hole of consciousness, I somehow ended up here: at the collective, and specifically at the intersection of the Global Consciousness Project and the Maharishi Effect. And there’s something here. I don’t know what it is yet, but it’s something. And I hope I can help people see it for the thing it is, not for the things it may represent on the surface.
Reality > Representations of Reality
Take the Maharishi Effect for example. The “Maharishi” in the name comes from an Indian spiritual guru named Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who came to America in the 50’s to spread a powerful meditation technique. That endeavor eventually morphed into what is known today as the Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement, spearheaded by the TM organization and its various subsidiaries, one of which is my school, Maharishi International University (MIU).
The TM organization has an interesting reputation, which I contributed to in a recent lengthy (but lovingly anchored) critique, and thus won’t touch on here. Suffice to say that it seems like the organization has some vested interest in controlling the narrative around the Maharishi Effect (as opposed to, say, opening it up for wide scientific inquiry).
But this is what I mean about focusing on what things are rather than getting lost in what they represent. The Maharishi Effect, if the methodology was indeed as dependable as it appears to have been, is not a product which belongs to anyone. Not Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, not the TM organization, not the scientists who discovered it. The words “The” “Maharishi” “Effect” make up a symbolic phrase consciously and intentionally constructed out of language. But what the Maharishi Effect actually is, at its core, is a principle. An essence. A Platonic “idea.” A subtle aspect of reality, like “gravity,” or “jealousy,” or “calculus.” It’s just an effect which happens when certain variables are leveraged. That’s it.
Now, we shouldn’t ignore that Maharishi, the TM scientists, and, by extension, the TM organization appear to have found a reliable way to produce this effect, known as the TM-Sidhi program. The data behind this method seems solid. But just because we found something that works doesn’t mean we should assume that’s the only way it works. Indeed, every spare scientist studying either consciousness or some adjacent subject or ‘-ology’ in every lab in every country should be doggedly pursuing new ways to create what we now call the Maharishi Effect. So should every MIU student, church leader, yoga instructor, spiritual teacher, store manager, and corporate CEO for that matter. And the TM organization, which already projects the desire to use the Maharishi Effect to produce world peace, should be cheering everyone on to do just that.
Shadow: The Bridge from Doom to Salvation
Things as they currently stand are not normal. Period. And I think by now it’s clear to more or less everyone that we, as a species, are on a runaway train to some form of destruction (and oh, how many forms it could take), unless something drastic changes. And, in my opinion, we’re kidding ourselves if we think we, all nine billion of us or whatever we’re up to now, are suddenly going to start agreeing on productive solutions to any of these gigantic problems we’re facing. Not to mention finding the necessary motivation to actually implement them, including whatever personal sacrifices they’ll inevitably entail. At least not at our current level of collective coherence. I’m certainly not saying we shouldn’t continue trying, I’m just saying it’s obvious we need help.
And that’s why this conversation is so important. If we’re going to get out of this mess, we clearly need more coherence. And that means we need an urgent discussion and examination of the principle lying beneath both the Maharishi Effect and the Global Consciousness Project (a principle which, if it’s real, existed long before we started giving it names). It’s our best shot. The best I’ve come across, anyway.
The TM organization, in this lens, stands poised with the potential to be bona fide heroes. To literally save the world. This is already how they market themselves, more or less, so now we will see if they can live up to it. I hope they do. Having attended their university and met some of their leadership, I’d certainly say there’s potential heroes in that mix. Ultimately, as I see it, it’ll come down to whether or not they’re willing to face their shadow, in its various forms. They aren’t alone. We all have to do it eventually, unfortunately, so I’m not picking on them. They just happen to have a bigger stage than most of us. But hey, so did Jim Carrey—his stage is enormous, but he faced his shadow. And we in the TM zeitgeist certainly love Jim Carrey. He’s been a lifelong idol of mine and continues to inspire me every time I learn more about him.
Forgiveness = A Powerful Weapon
Ultimately, this isn’t about the TM organization, I just see them as having an important part to play. And, in addition to the TM organization’s dharmic alignment, there’s also a reciprocal onus on us, as members of the public, one which I consider significantly more important than anything the TM organization could possibly do.
It’s our job to recognize and respect the difficulty of performing shadow work, and to celebrate anyone who puts the collective interest above their own if and when they choose to do it. Earlier I mentioned the unhelpful nature of withholding forgiveness. This is exactly the type of area where forgiveness is not only needed, it’s vital to our survival and capacity for evolution. When entities acknowledge their shadow, confess their crimes, repent their sins, correct unhealthy patterns, whatever you want to call it, we ought to celebrate them, not shame them for ever having had them in the first place. Or, if that’s too hard, then at the very least remain neutral.
Plus, the TM zeitgeist has already done some wonderful things for humanity, genuinely. And if they can manage to get together a group of 10,000 permanent meditators in India—a goal they’ve been pursuing for years, with the hypothesis that 10,000 would mark a sufficiently strong concentration of internal/deep attention to leverage the Maharishi Effect worldwide—they might very well save the world all on their own. I’m legitimately open to, and excited by, this prospect. As far as I can tell, the only obstacle is fundraising—paying that many people a salary for meditating isn’t cheap (and that leads us back to the shadow, with regard to financial transparency).
But whether they pull it off or not—and again I really hope they do—there’s no reason whatsoever not to humbly pursue and actively encourage other avenues in the meantime.
I have ideas for how they can do their shadow work in minimally painful or even potentially exciting ways, which would, in theory, boost their legacy as well as the legacy of Maharishi (i.e., not harm it). I’ll write about these ideas soon. One idea that I think would be cool is if John Hagelin and Roger Nelson, the figureheads of both scientific endeavors (the Maharishi Effect and the GCP, respectively), began publicly and urgently collaborating. That would be a dynamic and powerful way to model and embody the concept of coherence. Very on-brand for both men, I think.
Finally, I will just say one more time: whatever you pay attention to, anchor that attention as deeply as you can. If we’re all connected to this thing, this collective, which it seems like we are, then we would do well to start thinking of ourselves more as a collective species and less as individual humans (though both are obviously important and beautiful). If we can do that, I think we’re going to make it. I really do.