Integrating the We*

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.” – Walt Whitman

I recently noticed, when observing my internal monologue, that sometimes the pronoun “We” is used rather than “I”. Once noticed, I attempted to be aware of the frequency of this usage. My guess at the moment is that it is approximately twenty percent. Now, I have previously written about my observation that “my” identity seems to operate as an I/We, as it appears to be a collection of ever-shifting perspectives (We) but expresses itself as fixed and singular (I). It had not, however, come to my attention that “We” had snuck into my automated self-talk.

This new observation about the naturally arising plural pronoun became much more apparent in a recent seven-day meditation retreat with Jeff Carreira that I attended. The subtly nuanced undertones that lie beneath my monologues became easily distinguishable in that vast and quiet space, and certain centers of gravity became visible.

I have also said before that thoughts have a kind of gravity, which continues to exist in the surrounding energetic environs after their creation. Habitual thinking, like concentrated matter, has gravity commensurate with its mass, thus more focused thinking results in more gravity and that gravitational force will thereby more firmly hold our attention. It’s a bit of a trap, as our attention generates gravity and the gravity draws our attention. Our identity, whatever that is, will primarily dwell around these most frequented “centers of gravity”.

The one that I first noticed, and have written about before, is centered around the question “Do you love me?” I interact with people holding this concern in the background and it can strongly influence what I say and do. That underlying concern, of course, is not one that would normally come up with strangers. It might be more like “Can I fit in here?”, “Do you like me?”, “Do we have anything in common?”, and the like. I think, however, that whatever the variant might be, ultimately it does all arise from “Do you love me?” I have previously said that given the assumption that we all arose from a singular consciousness (Being), in our depths, where we are a more unified awareness, that question would never arise. Thus, our individuated selves are looking for “external” evidence by asking a question whose answer is already known to be “yes,” but that lies so deep beneath our current awareness that it is not experienced. We want that deep resonance touched through the world of our daily lives. This is, perhaps, one reason why we love interacting with each other. We can be “touched” in like kind, completing a circuit from the depths of another into our own.

Whereas before I just pointed to myself as a collection of perspectives, it seems to me now that some sets of perspectives have centers of gravity that act like individuated “subjects”, with agendas of their own. Their interactions show up in everyday life in sayings like “Well part of me wants to….” and a self-referential “Why did you do that?” So I wondered what my most prevalent centers of gravity are, what their purpose is, and what particular evidence they each are in search of.

My inquiry revealed a number of questions that always seem to be running in the background with different intensities at different times. When these internal “We” do show up as “me” in the foreground of my thinking, it has been very rare that I became aware of the questions that lie behind their concern, though I do act out of those concerns. There is usually a semi-conscious internal debate and then an action is taken. It’s almost entirely automated. Some “gut instinct” dominates and, in many cases, the losing party generates doubts and complaints; a family feud of sorts.

In delineating these questions, a hint of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs appeared to me. I will not directly correlate them, since these are simply my observations about myself. That hint, however, has me placing them, not in the order that I noticed them, which may be reflective of my own most dominant centers of gravity, but in what seemed to be a logical developmental line like other such lines that I’ve seen.

Is my body healthy?
Am I safe?
Do you love me?
Do I matter?
Are my friends and family OK?
Is everyone OK?
Is everyone flourishing?
Is the world flourishing?

Each seems to me to be much like an identity, but with a particular concern. It appears to have its own sense of self importance, its own priorities, its own strategies, its own defense mechanisms, its own idea of what paths lead to its satisfaction, its own idea of how it contributes to the whole and its own voice by which it communicates to the other gravity centers within my identity – the other internal We’s – as well as to other people. It also appears that each has a frequency range that naturally interacts with similar frequency ranges in other people when both are expressing and in proximity. Each one of them seeks to make its own contribution and to enjoy its own successes. When you declare “I love you” to someone and, in that aspect’s experience, the love is validated, it has successfully “created” an experience, which is enjoyed by the entirety of the entity, “me”.

At Jeff’s retreat, it seemed like my own internal “Yellow meme” – as articulated in the Spiral Dynamics model – awoke to the specific concerns of “my” internal We. In the Spiral Dynamics model of development, Yellow is the level of awareness at which all of the previous levels traversed become apparent, as well as the attributes and value of each. At that level, there is an acknowledgement of the unique contribution that each brings to the whole structure and a kind of orchestration can occur to unify that whole. With this view, I immediately began to see some of my internal We’s and the value of each. As in Spiral Dynamics, each has a function in serving the structure and the wellbeing of the collective We, but in this case it is all internal to “me”. I do care that my body is healthy; I do care that I’m safe, I do care that I belong.

Whereas normally one or more aspects will try to dominate or fight it out, from this Yellow perch, its center of gravity can listen to the concerns that arise from any voice that comes to the fore in a given situation; that is, whichever aspect is evoked into talking in what I will now call my internal dialogue. All can be heard and a single course of action can be agreed to and expressed by the team. That choice seems to have real power, in that the lack of dissent brings to bear the undiluted force of “my” creative choice.

As noted above, the gravitational pull exerts the most force around the primary the focal points of my attention. The higher the gravitational force, the less likely that my focus will drift upstream to entertain questions that are more broad and inclusive. They tend to be more subtle so are masked by the gravitational attention that has been generated “downstream”. Practices like meditation and some types of yoga release the attention, and thus some of the gravity, which then allows these types of inclusive questions to become visible.

It also appears that as my consciousness moves into the realm of the inclusive, the internal We begins to blend with external WE’s – other people and their internal collectives – in a semi-merged state. The gravitation of this “I/We” is shifting into more of a “WE/I” focus, as the emphasis turns to the collective. This takes the internal Yellow, and its learned expertise of internal orchestration, into the semi-external world of other WE’s, expanding the capacity of touching collective depths.

I noted above our desire to be touched in our collective depth by the love we come into contact with in our current experiential environs. It seems likely that each center of gravity provides its own unique access to that same depth, via a different doorway, and thus the mechanism of finding our collective selves here, in all of our glorious ways, may be just a matter of imagination and inclination.

• (I am acknowledging here that I used this title twice. The perspectives are related, but broadened in 2020)