I started this substack to propose a social structure which I like to call Fractal Sovereignty. The structure is built on individual autonomy.
Unless a cure is found for psychopathy, the only antidote is to maximize the sovereignty of individuals.
But “no man is an island unto himself.” Humans are social creatures and are meant to interact. However, they tend to surrender too much of their sovereignty to those who offer to meet their perceived needs, exchanging freedom for security. Taken too far, this tendency can lead to slavery; and so free humans must be ever-vigilant to guard their sovereignty.
…power should be yielded by individuals to higher levels of the [social] hierarchy (family, community, region, state, nation and world) only when there is a compelling benefit to doing so and only with adequate safeguards; and always provisionally, with the inalienable right to reclaim yielded sovereignty should the hierarchy become corrupt.
It goes without saying that independent, self-reliant, self-responsible, autonomous individuals are in the best position to guard their sovereignty. They voluntarily engage in relationships only when there is mutual benefit. But this notion evidently doesn’t go without saying as I discovered in Charles Eisenstein’s recent article on central bank digital currencies.
Well, there is no such thing as an autonomous individual. The true nature of the human being—indeed, of being itself—is relationship. Only a system built upon that metaphysical understanding can hope to durably fulfill the hopes that we invest in it.
There is no such thing as an autonomous individual. We are creatures of dependency to the core. Let us not speak, then, of freedom from social constraint. Let us ask instead how we should be constrained, and by whom. To whom should we be accountable, to whom should we be in debt, on whom should we depend in our neediness?
I took the opportunity to assert my position on this subject in the comment section, elaborating on previous Metaphysical Musings:
"There is no such thing as an autonomous individual."
The goal of spiritual development is full autonomy. Consider enlightened ones such as the Buddha. Was he needy? Healthy development proceeds from total dependence (think infants) to striving for independence (think adolescents) then, from a position of independence, voluntarily seeking interdependence because it is a win-win strategy and ultimately the path to unity. Unhealthy development occurs when the natural striving for independence is thwarted, the result is co-dependence and all the conflict that goes with it.
"The true nature of the human being—indeed, of being itself—is relationship...We are creatures of dependency to the core."
At our core is the Oneness, which is pure being. Relationship came about secondarily, when the One individuated in order to experience Itself. Hu-mans thus have a dual nature: "Hu" or divine (pure being) and "man" from manus or hand. We are "divine manipulators" who have become so engrossed in our doings in the illusion of separation that we have lost touch with our beings which, beyond the illusion, are all One Being. Restoring balance involves transitioning from conflictual co-dependence toward harmonious, loving relationship among free and independent individuals. Only those who are free can truly love and the greatest gesture of love is to bestow freedom, in imitation of Divinity.
The One, our core identity, is, by definition, autonomous. We are projections or representations of the One into the illusion of separation and as such are endowed with divine qualities such as creativity and sovereignty. We are "made in the image of God."
Our identity is unitary. There is exactly one of you, not 1.234 of you. This image or reflection of the One pervades the illusion as quantum. There is no 1.234 electron either. Although your unitary sense of self appears distinct from mine, they are in fact one Self and this can be directly experienced from within the illusion. Think of the facets on the surface of a gemstone. Each facet is a unique "self" but all are one with the whole gemstone "Self." The distinction is a matter of awareness and perspective.
As hu-mans with a dual nature we have the ability to shift perspective at will, or would if we had not become entranced by the illusion. Individuals such as the Buddha have dispelled the illusion and claimed their sovereignty and unlimited potential as creators. Some choose to identify as the One while others embark on a sovereign journey through creation to experience Self from many perspectives. Such enlightened individuals can traverse timelines and bend reality. (See my recent article.) Full autonomy, no dependency. All relationships are voluntary and without hidden agendas based on need. The collective consciousness of humanity is being called to -- indeed is being pressed to -- achieve a measure of enlightenment. Although we may not all become buddhas right away, it is beneficial to understand the direction to move in, the goal to aim toward. Charles asserts dependency and constraint as our core condition, as a metaphysical principle: no social construct will work if not founded on this basis. I disagree. Our destiny is profoundly greater.
Siddhartha Gautama was indeed needy but he saw that his neediness and the neediness of others caused suffering. He tried to conquer his own neediness by practicing asceticism. But that was still doing in the illusion. Finally, he stopped doing, sat still and calm, fully present, fully being, fully self: unlimited Self. He was now Buddha, the "awakened one."
Until we are also awakened, we will have needs we must address. But if the suffering of the world troubles us as it did Siddhartha, we will work to end suffering. We can do this by meeting each others' immediate needs. But if you give a man a fish when he is hungry, he will need another fish tomorrow. A greater service is to teach him how to fish, after learning how to fish yourself.
Consider as an example another enlightened one, Jesus. He realized the truth, that at our core there is only one Self: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me." As such, he was autonomous and unconstrained, which he demonstrated through many miraculous works. The realization that all selves are one Self, the experience that other is self, produces a response that is beyond compassion, beyond empathy, beyond relating, to self-identification: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” He didn't mean that symbolically, but literally. This identification with both the Father and with all others, even his enemies, caused him to minister to both their spiritual AND practical needs, providing them with food when they were hungry and healing them when they were ill. Jesus did not teach the people to live with their head in the clouds and make excuses not to help those in need. Rather he urged them, even commanded them to "love thy neighbour as thyself," leaving no doubt about what practical love is when he told the story of the Good Samaritan. He did indeed urge spiritual effort, declaring that the result would be that "ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." Free from limitation, free from dependency, empowered as he himself was. He stated that such a state was within reach of everyone: "the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do."
"None of that is new, it's the kind of spirituality that has been popular for a long time now."
Agreed. The teachings of Jesus have been popular for thousands of years, already.
"Advocating for it is like advocating for a monarch who has been ruling your country for centuries while everyone can see that it's been going down in flames."
You make a good point. Why hasn't Buddhism or Christianity or any other spiritual tradition based on purported universal truth led to a better world after all this time?
My response is that we have indeed made progress, albeit slowly, and are on the cusp of much greater progress. I believe that the world is not as barbaric as it once was, despite appearances to the contrary. I'm certain that if nuclear weapons had been available a thousand years ago, they would have been used without hesitation. Much of the turmoil happening now is due to exposure of darkness that has been hidden for centuries coming to light, like a boil bursting before healing can begin. I personally experienced heart warming compassion from many strangers recently, as I evacuated from Ukraine. They are modern day Good Samaritans, and I believe there are more of them in the world than than ever before.
What also has been popular for a long time is the belief that humans are so dependent and limited that they need a ruling class to manage them. Or worse, their essential nature is evil and so they must be restricted, controlled, oppressed, and even cleansed.
People are free to believe what they will. The One Creator (the Father) has ordained it. They can believe in limitation or freedom and what they believe is what they will experience. Charles writes against the libertarian ideal of individual autonomy, even going as far as writing that it does not exist, as a metaphysical principle. I countered his assertions so as to remind people that they have a choice to believe otherwise, as a metaphysical principle. Society can organize around the principles of freedom and autonomy rather than limitation and dependency.
A related concept relevant to a discussion about social structures is the abundance vs. scarcity dichotomy. Belief in scarcity results in neediness which tends to result in co-dependency and even slavery. Our economic and monetary systems are built upon the concept of scarcity: there is not enough to go around. Things tend to be assigned value depending on how scarce they are. What if scarcity is just a belief, an unquestioned belief? What if, at its core, reality is abundant? “Ask and it shall be given to you.” What if we, at the core of our being, are unlimited? “The kingdom of God is within you.” What if simply shifting one’s beliefs results in the proclamation, “my cup runneth over?”
What if humans are meant to live in abundance? What if nature is designed to provide humans with everything needed on the material level, so that they are free to enjoy life and to develop their consciousness? What if the Garden of Eden is more than a myth but a blueprint of divine intention for humans? (See my article Back to Eden.) Will we develop new social structures, including monetary systems, based on scarcity or abundance? Based on human interdependence or technological artifice? (See my article Bitcon for a contrast between the global, scarcity-based substitute for human trust, Bitcoin, vs. a community-based prosperity generator, the Wörgl stamp scrip.)