Journey to the Wisdom of the Center: Part 1

Since ancient times, there has been a theory that the wisdom of the many could be superior to the convictions of a few, and that the postulates of individuals are usually more extreme than the median of the masses. The Buddha advised us to take the middle way, using the analogy of tuning a lyre string. He explained that if it was made either too tight or too loose, the string would be out of tune. Therefore, he recommended the centralized solution where the balance is just right for perfect pitch.  

Aristotle, in his work on “Politics,” advised us that the average opinion of a large group is likely to be closer to the truth than that of a small group or an individual. He likened it to the probability of a potluck dinner being tastier when everyone brings their best dish compared to a banquet provided by a single person.

This “wisdom of the crowd” is not a unique or trendy idea of the times, but a viable concept taught throughout history. It doesn’t only apply to philosophical or political ideas. We can see this collective knowing even at a humble community gathering. At a country fair in Plymouth, England in 1906, there was a contest to see if people could guess the weight of a large, roasted ox. Some 800 people offered their opinion, no one was right, but the average of the entire group came within 1% of guessing the correct weight. This statistical exercise from the country fair can be easily replicated as a parlour game, knowing that the more people involved, the closer to the truth the averages of their answers will be.  

Rather than trusting this collective wisdom, however, today an increasing number of people are more inclined to trust their own opinions, or those of a very small group they belong. Yet, historically, this supremacy of the individual or small group ran contrary to our social needs. 

Our DNA has programmed us for millions of years to prioritize survival. In the early days of our species’ evolution, we increased our chances for individual survival by finding safety in groups, clans and tribes. The larger and more cohesive the tribe is, the greater chance for healthy and thriving members.

In these turbulent times, however, it now seems that our instinct for survival has become less concerned with maintaining our tribe and more interested in protecting our individuality. For many of us, the biggest perceived danger is now the loss of individual will and originality. Enter the spirit of the rugged individual and free-thinking libertarian. With our needs for individual, physical survival largely taken care of by the size and security of our group, we begin to look inward and fear for the well-being of our unique and solitary soul.  

This shift in perception, along with the ascendancy of materialism, has given credence to the unfortunate notion of the “tragedy of the commons” for some. The idea here is that the more individuals indulge in their own desires, such as consuming more than their share of natural resources, the more those who respect the good of the whole will suffer. The thinking then becomes, “why should I sacrifice my own wishes or needs by conserving water or energy, when others are using far more than their fair share”? 

This general trend of refocusing on our individual rights and privileges, at the expense of the collective, is becoming increasingly more prevalent and radicalized. Social media posts of an extreme stance gain far greater attention than those of a centrist nature. Algorithms concentrate radical positions so that the feedback we receive is an exaggerated version of our own beliefs. The extremism of any individual spreads like wildfire, whereas the opinions of someone expressing a centrist view garners little interest. Newspaper headlines are mainly megaphones for the catastrophic, whereas the happy everyday lives of billions go unnoticed. Thus, for the person suffering from the perceived existential threat to one’s individual identity, standing out from the crowd with a radical worldview becomes a self-fulfilling journey to the edge of nowhere, but apparently makes us feel better about ourselves.  

This process is happening in both politics and religious thought. Those on the fringe of politics, whether left or right, get additional attention, while very few get excited about anyone advocating a centrist position. As for religion, it is those who clamor for the exclusivity of their belief system who gain fervent followers. The notion that my religion is the one and only answer and everyone else is some kind of heretic, gains adherents, while spiritual thought leaders who counsel us for moderation and wholeness can seem lacking in passion.

This fracturing of society into ever more individualistic and fringe points of view is tearing our world apart. Accordingly, there is little interest in a writer or podcaster recommending a journey to the center of anything. Who wants to lose their self-identity in the oh so boring center, or navigate complex and diverse perspectives to gain collective wisdom and connection? Will those supporting the wisdom of the crowd just subject themselves to the “tragedy of the commons”?

From the perspective of the Holomovement, it seems more likely that centering and balancing might become the next big trend. Contrary to the idea that moving towards the center takes us into a less interesting worldview lacking originality, the Holomovement theory offers the idea that a journey to the center (the Implicate Order, the Divine, however you name the nameless) is the most meaningful and wise path we could take.

Let us consider the words of William Walker Atkinson in his writings on the “Seven Cosmic Laws”: “The further the creation is from the Center, the more it is bound; the nearer the Center it reaches, the nearer to Free it is.” In centering ourselves energetically, we can find coherence within the collective, and in this frequency we are exposed to more knowledge, resources, and group support than we could imagine.  

On the fringe, we are bound by our individual limitations and lose access to the wisdom of the collective. In the center we are close to the core, where not only the wisdom of the many resides, but the sacred creative vision of the universe is present as well.

A centralized spirit doesn’t mean we should play it safe with diluted compromise. What I’m reflecting on is how a movement can inspire a critical mass to live and act in coherence with shared values beyond politics and religious dogma. Within the Holomovement perspective, we envision the way to cultural and spiritual unity that emerges in the absence of siloed groups, echo chambers and a lone wolf mentality fueled by the illusion of separation and scarcity.

It’s hardly surprising that we tend to doubt the success of what often feels like a paradox: Collective purpose AND Individual meaning. We are experiencing extreme change and upheaval, and it takes a leap of faith to place our bets on collaboration, especially with ever-increasing polarizing viewpoints. People’s concern, and rightly so, is that if you totally submit yourself to the collective, you lose your individuality and are subject to the “State” and eliminate individual perspective. This is a valid concern and history has plenty of examples of this demise. 

The Holomovement, however, is beyond politics or religion. Perhaps, rather than ‘submitting’ to the greater good, we describe this centering as ‘returning’ to wholeness, an invitation to return to the divine center within the Implicate Order. In stewarding this movement, we reunite with something greater than ourselves, amplified by the collaboration of our unique and individual gifts. 

Collective purpose does not equate to one pathway, guided by one leader. This return to “center” is toward the sacred haven within the Implicate Order, an agreed-upon home with many points of entry.  Instead of formulating our worldview based on a political party or a single religion, in the center we draw on the entire field of the wisdom of the whole.  

We’re all on a shared journey through these incarnations, and I don’t believe the individual self will disappear because of an alignment with a unifying worldview. Quite the opposite will take place. The closer we are to divine truth, the more options we have to become the highest version of our true self.  As an individual, we are also a creator, acting in a way that is a fractal of the creation of the universe at the heart of the Implicate Order. Our capacity for divine creativity manifests as individual will, that we can ultimately use for cohesion or chaos, depending on the thoughts and actions we choose. 

So, it’s not death by centralization. It is the birth of coherence. Seeking the center of the Implicate Order is to be immersed in the same motion and vibrating creativity that brought the universe into being. The Holomovement is fueled by this abundant and generous energy, freely given to all in infinite capacity, and it is far from the danger of falling off the lonely, radical edge. 

Even if we accept that there are enlightened individuals throughout history that seemed to go out on their own, we find that they were channeling and downloading the wisdom of the whole. It is our ego that persuades us that we as an individual can outsmart the wisdom of the universe and its universal truths to reach some sort of nirvana through material power or wealth. But, as Thich Nhat Hahn has said, “the new messiah will likely be a sangha.”

Is this what we mean when we say the Holomovement is guided by a centralized energy? If this resonates, then might we describe and define the Holomovement as a living expression of individual purpose, aligned with the central truth and unifying values of the Implicate Order? Like a divine GPS guiding us to where we are and showing us the way to get back home.

‍

‍