Scroll down to watch an interview with Lynn
Lotus Guide: I would like to start this interview by getting your feedback on something that is often referred to as the global brain, or as I like to refer to it, the evolving human consciousness. The condensed version is simply this: From the beginning of time it appears that the prime evolutionary force in nature has been to self-organize at whatever level it was at, then when that level has maximized its potential it reaches out and self-organizes into an even higher and more complex level. In other words, atoms self-organized into molecules, molecules self-organized into cells, cells organized into complex patterns to become the first organisms, and now those very same organisms have evolved into the necessary complexity to have self-awareness. This would seem to indicate that the next step would be for these planetary organisms we call human beings to connect and self-organize into the next level of complexity, called planetary consciousness, or as Peter Russell would say, the global brain. Is this what you’re talking about in your book, The Bond, when you speak of the space between things and energetically connecting?
Lynne McTaggart: Yes. exactly. When I talk about the bond I mean that nature has a drive for wholeness and has created us only in relationship like one giant superorganism. It’s a fact there is a connection between atoms and all of us in relationship with each other and with our environment. In all of our societal relationships there is a bond so profound and intricate that it’s impossible to say where one thing stops and another thing begins. So you see this mirrored in every aspect, just as you described, from the subatomic world to the world that we’re more familiar with. So competition ends up being a false creation in our society.
LG: It seems to me that what has always been the evolution of consciousness has now become a conscious evolution because of our participation in it through self-awareness.
I’m sure you’ve heard of David Boehm’s experiment where he condensed atoms to a density of plasma. At that point something very peculiar happens. They start acting as one in the sense that whatever you do to one atom causes all of the atoms to react the same. Now if this is true, this means that population is a very critical aspect of our continued evolution if we are thinking in terms of oneness. The trouble is, it seems that overpopulation is at the root of most of our world problems, whether it’s clean drinking water, food supply, territorial wars, or any other number of problems on our planet. So my question is simply this: Do you think that we need a certain amount of people to ignite the sense of oneness on our planet in the same way that David Boehm did in his experiment with atoms?
LM: That’s a very good point but I’ve seen oneness ignite in very small groups. I’ve been playing around with this in the Intention Experiment. Our experiments seem to indicate that all you need is a small group to set an intention. A lot of what I’ve been writing about in The Bond is the power of small groups to change large groups. Human beings are very infectious with other human beings. We know now that we actually have mirror neurons that mirror other human beings. In other words, if I’m smiling it tends to make other people with me smile also. Whether I’m happy or lonely, I will tend to have happy or lonely friends. The same thing happens with actions; if I make an act of generosity it tends to be passed on down through society. So I see small groups as being very important in having an effect on large groups.
LG: Well, on a personal level I hope that what you’re saying is the way it is. And I know that history has shown that one person can make a large and significant change in society, and in fact it usually is one person who starts any movement. Something I was wondering about as I was reading The Bond is that you say the health of a community is dependent on its identification with that community or with that culture. But it seems that a lot of our social problems emanate from the fact that we have whole subcultures in large cities, such as Iranian, Korean, and Chinese, that almost refuse to assimilate into our culture even to the point of not learning our language. It seems to me that this causes a needless division in the larger culture that we call America. How do you think this plays out?
LM: That’s a great question and I think I have an answer. There’s a simple way to solve this, I think, that’s used in social conflict around the planet. I’ll give you an example. It has to do with a bunch of 12-year-old boys. They were divided into two groups and sent to summer camp. Each group took a separate bus and they were asked to create a name for themselves and even make a flag for themselves. As you can imagine, it didn’t take long for competition and animosity to reach an explosive point. It didn’t take long before each group was trying to destroy the other group’s flags, ransacking their camps, and in short, they were at war. So then the camp counselors engineered a series of crises within the camp that would require the combined effort of both groups to solve—things like a blocking of the water supply, which caused both groups to come together to fix and solve. To accomplish this they began talking together, planning together; in short they had a goal that was more important to solve and was to the benefit of both groups. Before long the divisions that were clearly laid out in the beginning started to dissolve and in the end the boys voted to ride home on the same bus. This is called a “superordinate goal” and what it means is that it’s a goal that requires the combined effort of everyone involved.
LG: As we look out at society it’s very clear that we are divided into clearly defined groups based on beliefs, race, religion, and nations. It seems to me that what you’re saying is that this is part of an ongoing evolution. What concerns me is a statement that Carl Sagan once made when he said, “The reason we may not be being contacted by advanced alien races is because there may be a tendency for societies to destroy themselves during their technological adolescence.”
LM: Well, that’s an interesting statement. There is no doubt that we are in crisis at this moment in our history. Most of this comes from our individualistic mind-set. And it is bringing us to the brink of extinction on many levels, but I think there are methods we can use to go beyond our individual beliefs that I talk about in my book, The Bond. The main thing is to honor the relationship above being right or proving somebody wrong. This is a big change in communication because right now we usually have relationships for personal gain or to prove ourselves right. As you know, David Boehm talks a lot about beliefs being a social construct based on individualism and groups. And to rise above this in a collective consciousness is the goal of any society. He talks a lot about simply slowing down and stopping to try to dominate or prevail over a situation.
LG: Lately I’ve been doing a lot of studying and reading about beliefs and have come to realize that most beliefs are not based on facts at all; they’re usually based on cultural and individual experiences. It’s the way we see life—in other words, we see life as we are, not as it is. Understanding this ends up being crucial because we realize if we were in the other person’s shoes we would probably be doing and acting in the same way. We end up getting heavily identified with our beliefs, which is why we say, “I am a Republican, I am a Democrat, I am a Christian, I am a Muslim.” And because of this identification we feel like we need to defend our viewpoint or belief. And if defense doesn’t work, which it seldom does, we resort to offense. It’s all about survival and in this case it’s survival of our belief. Like the old saying goes, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” If we can do this, it seems to take the need out of the other person to be defensive.
LM: Absolutely, and the other thing is not minding if you don’t agree. In order to like someone you don’t necessarily need to agree with them. A good example was a situation with the Israelis and the Palestinians. A researcher named Don Beck was working with these two groups successfully, simply by getting them to communicate with each other how and why they saw their situation the way they saw it. It’s part of our nature to want to connect. Once each side understood that the other side had a legitimate and truthful perspective also, they were able to start communicating peacefully.
LG: I remember Joseph Campbell saying once that his concern as far as religion goes was that the gap between religion and science is getting so great that we may have the tendency to drop religion altogether. And if this happened we would lose the mythology that religion has held onto for centuries. And at this point it seems like mythology is the glue that holds society together. But unfortunately, our religious conflicts are taking on an urgency now that we’ve entered into a society with advanced technology. So it seems to me that we need a new myth, a much larger myth that we can all relate to. And the myth that comes to mind would be the mythology of the planet itself. We need a common goal on this planet and I can think of nothing better or more important and urgent than saving our planet.
LM: Actually, I think that’s a good idea. When I wrote The Bond one of my purposes for writing it was to rewrite our scientific story. Sciences have the view of looking at the world as individual pieces and this has been going on now for about 300 years. Then we have the Darwinian myths that life is a struggle to survive. In my book I show how all life is not about competition but about striving for wholeness. When we compete we are weak, and when we work together we are strong. My hope is that this will become common knowledge someday because this will transcend religion as we know it. We just need to start focusing on the commonalities of religion.
LG: I’ve noticed in myself in my deep moments of meditation that there is something in me, call it spirit, that is seeking to express itself no matter how much I, my ego, attempts to suppress or hold it back. But in the same way that I can sit here and hold my breath for a while, there is something inside me fighting for survival that will force me to take a breath. In other words, I cannot sit here and suffocate myself because part of my nature demands life. And I think it’s the same way with spirit—that also is part of my nature and it seeks to survive and to express itself. In the same way that breathing at some point was not a choice, I think also our spiritual evolution at some point will not be a choice; it will simply be.
LM: One of the things I talk about in my book is that we are born to give; even though we are indoctrinated throughout our lives differently this simply is not what science tells us. It does seem that our natural state is to help others so I guess our goal is to find that natural state within ourselves. This spiritual expression that you are referring to can be seen when something inside of us overrides our own personal survival to save another person.
Lynne McTaggart and I go on to talk about many of the aspects of society that are complicated on the surface, but as you look deeper, finding common understanding, you can see that many of our problems could be easily reconciled through communication, understanding, and love. This interview was an hour and a half so I could not transcribe it all, but you can watch it on our YouTube channel, which is www.YouTube/LotusGuide. or watch it here: