The New Paradigm
vol. I, Number 38

Dear Friends,

Sir Winston Churchill once remarked that democracy is the worst possible form of government; except for all the others. He was referring, of course, exclusively to a constellation of governing theories which would come under the rubric of proxy governance, i.e. various forms in which "somebody else," such as the King, Emperor, Pope, Chief, President, Legislative Representative, etc., bears the responsibility, or the privilege, of "representing the interests" of shim's constituents. There is an alternative to proxy governance, and that is what I call Self-governance: something that has not been accorded "official sanction" on this planet within historical human memory.

Much of what I have to say about "governance" is implicit in what I have had to say in these pages about a good many other things, and may be summed up in a single succinct statement: In my opinion, the only valid form of governance is Self-governance. Full stop. By "valid" I mean "that works," or is "cosmically viable."

Again, I wish to stress that I am only expressing a personal opinion, for which I make no claims whatsoever. I have no wish to impose my ideas upon anybody, nor to convince anybody of the "rightness" of my opinions; but I share them freely with any who find them of interest, and maintain that it is always incumbent upon the reader, the observer, the student of Life, to evaluate for shimself all information entering shim's conscious awareness from any source. That is a significant part of what I mean by "Self-governance," for which I suggest there is no valid substitute.

Of course this isn't likely to be called a "politically correct" idea; for time out of mind the human race has imbibed the doctrine - the paradigm - generation after generation, in all regions, races, languages and cultures, that government of some kind is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of "civil society;" that if a group of any size is ever without "leadership," ...um, something terrible will happen. People won't know what to do, and so in their impossibly confused state, will naturally commence an orgy of destruction that will only come to an end when either there is nothing left to destroy, or there is nobody left to destroy it; or when "leadership" once again asserts itself and somehow brings the orgy of destruction to an orderly halt.

Interesting idea, when you stop to think about it, isn't it? Is that naturally what you would do - in the absence of "leadership?" If the Highway Patrol, for instance, were suddenly to evaporate into another dimension, would you immediately start driving at 95 miles an hour (153 km/h) on the wrong side of the road? Maybe some people would, but do you think many would? I don't. And I don't think any that did would for very long constitute a menace to traffic.

I submit to your consideration the thought that the necessity of institutional proxy government is a self-serving hoax perpetuated generation after generation by exclusive aristocracies in many different lands, cultures and historical periods; that this hoax has been acquiesced in by multitudes of "constituents" who have preferred some form of slavery over taking responsibility for their own actions; but that the time has at last arrived for the awakening of the human race on planet Earth to the limitless liberty (and responsibility) of Self-governance. I further submit that the replacement of proxy governance with Self-governance does not require hostility, rebellion or insurrection of any kind, but only quiet, personal decision on the part of individual human beings; and that therefore it is a gradual, "evolutionary" (as opposed to "revolutionary") process in which each individual may elect to participate to any extent, at any pace, or not at all. Nevertheless, it is a spontaneous process that is progressing very rapidly at this time.

The hoax of the necessity for proxy governance rests upon a number of distinctly "old paradigm" presumptions, among which are the following:

1. The universe is an essentially hostile, inhospitable environment for life, and "survival" can be achieved but for a limited time only: and that with much attendant difficulty and persistent struggle against ultimately insurmountable odds. In this arena, such minimal "survival" as is possible may be secured only by the "fittest," meaning in general, the strongest, healthiest, swiftest, most cunning members of a given species. A corollary presumption is that the universe is a place of fundamental scarcity; that the necessities for life, such as food, water, shelter, hunting ground, pasturage, cropland, minerals, energy, are in short supply in relation to a burgeoning population, and are secured by the "fit" at the cost of the "unfit" by dint of competition, struggle and war. These presumptions were articulated at considerable length in 1789 by Thomas Malthus, and in 1859 by Charles Darwin.

2. Accordingly, the natural "ground state," or "relaxed state" of human relationship is presumed to be one of mutual antagonism and predation. Left to their own devices, in other words, absent the coercive police powers of an overarching government, people naturally tend to damage one another, and hence the fabric of "civil society." In 1651 Thomas Hobbes expressed this presumption as follows: "Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man." And, "In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

3. There are evidently presumed to be two distinctly different kinds of people in this world - indeed it would seem, virtually two different species: the "Nobility" and the "Commoners," otherwise operationally, if not explicitly, distinguished as "Masters" and "Slaves." It is the "Commoners" who seem most subject to presumption No. 2 above, while the "Nobility" are presumed not to be so seriously afflicted by it, and are therefore qualified, "for the good of all," to administer the coercive police powers of the State, without which the "Commoners" would naturally tear to pieces themselves, one another, and the whole State. Another way to put it would be that the "Nobility" are manifestly the most "fit," for it is they who "survive" most handsomely and in greatest style, wealth and power, and are therefore the most qualified, both by the practical achievement of their station and by the wisdom such achievement implies, to administer the coercive powers of State.

4. Because of the natural human proclivity for mutual self-destruction, in order to achieve even a rough approximation of "civil society," or "civilization," it is presumed necessary to constitute governments, laws and moral principles which run exactly contrary to native human nature. Yet it is those very individuals who exercise their native human nature most effectively who are deemed most "fit" to formulate, administer and enforce said contrary governments, laws and moral principles.

If I have not seriously misrepresented the situation here on Earth, I earnestly ask you, "What is wrong with this picture?" What is wrong with it, I submit, is simply that it is fundamentally mistaken on all counts:

1. The universe is not hostile to life, nor is it a place of scarcity and want. On the contrary, the universe is burgeoning with life, supports it lavishly, and exists in a condition of utterly limitless abundance. As to "survival:" there is no alternative to "survival," for nothing that exists can possibly "non-exist." The fear of "death" and all its lesser derivatives, such as calamity of any kind, is emptier than the vacuum of Outer Space.

2. The natural "ground state" of human relationship is not one of antagonism and mutual strife, but one of love, cooperation and co-creativity. Were this not so, Thomas Hobbes, for one, would never have been able to utter so much as a single syllable of his treatise: for no human society could ever have come into existence in the first place, and no "common power to keep them all in awe" could ever have been constituted; for all these require uncoerced cooperative human effort, which Hobbes among others claims to be contrary to human nature.

3. If there are two distinguishable "human types," namely "Nobility" and "Commoners," or "Masters" and "Slaves," what are the properties that distinguish them? The "Masters" rule, and the "Slaves" submit. That makes about as much sense, and conveys as much meaningful information, as the statement that "winners" win and "losers" lose. It doesn't even tell you as much as that "dogs" bark and "ducks" quack.

4. Already contradicts itself. If human nature is adversarial and warlike, it hardly follows that the most successful adversaries are also the most qualified to extol, legislate and enforce altruistic moral and legal principles. Nor, again, is it possible they would have any social structure at all upon which to build, were their picture of human nature anything more than the product of terrified human imagination.

No matter how I revolve these issues in my mind, I always come back with ever increasing conviction to the, for me, inescapable conclusion that the "old paradigm," the Hobbesian / Malthusian / Darwinian paradigm of fear, scarcity and "death," is simply "dead wrong," and "180° out of phase" with Reality (capital R, for "Real"). It is fundamentally self-contradictory and leads inevitably to paradox, chaos and confusion. That it is the foundation for the conventional human conception of governance goes a long way in explaining why human society has been so notoriously chaotic and strife-torn from generation to generation, for as far into our past as we are able to peer historically, or through the eyes and instruments of prehistoric anthropological investigation. Under such circumstances, the wonder to me, which seems nothing short of miraculous, is that human society functions at all: a material fact which attests to a profoundly harmonious, loving and sublime human nature at the heart of every individual. For virtually every facet of conventional "civilized society" works exactly and explicitly opposed to the very nature that makes human society possible in the first place. Thus, whatever is at all satisfactory in contemporary human society is not so because of institutional government, but in spite of it.

Therefore, as I said at the outset, there is no substitute for Self-governance; for it is Self-governance, and Self-governance only, that moves human society forward in any way whatsoever. Whatever harmony and satisfaction associated with human society there ever is will be directly proportional to the fraction of the population that understands, and deliberately practices, this simple thing: Self-governance. It doesn't involve insurrection, or taking up the cudgel against the "old paradigm" "Masters" at all; for "they" are sublime, free and infinitely potent human beings, no less than "you" or "I;" but also, no more so. "They," and "we," have alike been in thrall to a false paradigm, and we must alike shift paradigms, individual by individual, if any of us are ever to taste true liberty. This is a process that cannot be coerced or executed by proxy; but neither can it be prevented by any means.

So what is Self-governance? How do you "do it?" Actually, I'd say we all "do it" all the time, one way or another. If we didn't, human intercourse would come to a complete halt and dissolve into a miasma of utter chaos and despair. Every spontaneous, creative, self-motivated decision is an act of Self-governance. Ultimately, every human act of any kind is an act of Self-governance, for even under the most tyrannically oppressive "old paradigm" regime, if you decide to obey a particular "law," still that's your decision. You could as well decide not to obey it. You may be terrorized into submission, or not terrorized into submission; it's up to you. Everything you do, whether "sanctioned by law" or not, is a product of your decision, nobody else's. The same with "morality:" at every moment you decide to follow the conventional moral code, or to violate it, or to formulate your own moral code, or something else. But always you are in the "driver's seat;" you are the pilot of your life; you are Self-governed, poorly or well, adroitly or incompetently, but uncompromisingly. And you bear the consequences of your decisions. Again, there is no substitute for Self-governance, for ultimately, there is no other kind. Proxy governance is a total illusion. The only relevancy it bears to the human condition is the extent to which it confuses, and hence obstructs, the process of competent Self-governance.

Doubtless there are countless experiments in Self-governance under way around the Earth, "even as we speak," and always have been. I suggest, however, that Self-governance will become thoroughly satisfactory only for those who are able to negotiate the shift from the "old paradigm" to the "new paradigm," i.e. from the false paradigm of fear, strife and separation, to recognition of the indissoluble identity and unity of All That Is. As this process continues to unfold and gather momentum, I see a profound change taking place in every corner of our heretofore dark world. Doors and windows swing wide; light and fresh air stream in, and after a long, exhausting slumber in the nightmarish illusions of our "old paradigm" imaginings, we awaken, all over the world, to the utter simplicity of enlightened, purposeful, exuberantly free Self-governance. I can easily imagine the emergence of a world in which all "old paradigm" government agencies wither entirely away, simply as a result of diminishing use and lack of popular support, as humanity progressively shifts into "new paradigm" awareness and fully operative, conscious Self-governance.

However I may be challenged perhaps, with an objection somewhat along the following lines: "Aren't you indulging," I might be asked, "in a rather lopsided, unjustifiably idealistic flight of fancy? Do you seriously suppose there are really no domains of human endeavor which do not require some form of overarching government regulation - such as currency, commerce, transportation, public health, education, adjudication, etc.? Should not pilots, for instance, or doctors, or electricians, be licensed to perform their respective tasks, only after proving their competency to a qualified, qualifying authority?"

To which I reply: In a predominantly "old paradigm" society (which is the only kind most of us can remember), perhaps; because the "old paradigm" presumptions enumerated above and elsewhere position people in artificially adversarial relationships of mutual mistrust. Friendship and trust are exceptional in such a society, not the rule; so a doctor, for instance, negligently amputating the wrong leg of a patient, may well feel greater concern for the resulting threat to shim's own career than for any inconvenience shim's negligence may cause the patient. For after all, the patient is only "somebody else," and therefore of no intimate concern to the doctor. Superficially, then, it may seem reasonable for an "old paradigm" society to establish standards for medical practice in an effort to cull out at least the most obvious impostors from the medical profession. But it doesn't really work even then; for there are always those who slip through the licensing process who, through oversight or corruption, ought not to. Which raises the corollary conundrum: Who licenses the licensers who license the doctors (or the pilots, or the electricians, etc.)? Upon scrutiny, the whole structure resembles nothing so much as a gigantic house of cards, the integrity of which is preserved with only the utmost vigilance and effort, and is at best highly transitory even then.

In the emerging "new paradigm" society I envision, on the other hand, the prevailing perception is one of total identity and unity of Each with All, bound by Love. To a doctor, to continue the example above, no "patient" is ever "just somebody else," but is perceived as an intimate part of shimself; and there is no such thing as a "routine surgery." Nothing is "routine;" everything is intensely intimate and personal, for (in the example) it's the surgeon's own leg that must be amputated, and you may be sure it will be performed with the utmost care and attention, whether the surgeon has a "license" or not. Shim would never attempt the operation were shim not competent, for that would be irresponsible and unthinkable.

Similarly for every profession or human endeavor: action born of Love and the awareness of the essential identity of Each with All requires no other "law" or "administration." And no "law" or "administration" is ultimately possible for action not born of Love; it is simply chaotic and ungovernable. Therefore again: there is no substitute for Self-governance, for that is the only governance there is, whether well or poorly exercised.

To bring all this to bear upon "practical contemporary reality" I'll venture a few concluding remarks about the United States government in particular; not because I happen to be "an American," but because of the American claim to be the ground-breaking form of government that was supposed to usher in a new chapter to the history of human governance. "Novus ordo seclorum" is the motto on the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States, "New order of the ages." In 1789, having wrested their sovereignty on the field of battle from the tyranny of the British Aristocracy, the Founders established a Constitutional Republic in North America, based upon the "self-evident Truths" "that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...." [Declaration of Independence, 1776] America was to be a land of freedom and equality where the Common Man was King, whose sovereign rights were ordained by God and secured administratively by a Constitution which strictly circumscribed the powers of institutional government.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." [Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, 3]

Still mistrustful of the potential abuse of government, in 1791 the early Americans appended the Bill of Rights to their Constitution, explicitly stating, among others, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [Bill of Rights, Amendment X]

It was a noble beginning, and will probably stand for all time as the most auspicious effort at proxy governance ever undertaken in human history; but behold the corrupt mess into which these noble aspirations have degenerated in the course of two mere centuries. I use the word "corrupt" advisedly, not in the "moral" sense, which is slippery and difficult to ascertain with certainty, but in the empirical sense in which one may speak of "corrupt data."

To illustrate, imagine arbitrarily or randomly changing, say, about every 100th figure in a numerical database, such as the account records of a bank. One could say, "Well, anyway, the database is 99% accurate; only one figure in 100 is wrong." However, it is plain that the entire database is empirically corrupt and 100% unreliable, for there is no way to distinguish the false data from the true.

I don't imagine I shall have to enumerate the countless instances in which the United States government have deliberately deceived the public; i.e. lied to, cheated, perpetuated false and misleading information in the name of truth and public service. E-mail me if you're interested, and I'll read you chapter and verse; but I don't think I shall have to, for abundant cases reside in the public domain and can hardly be overlooked by any who search for them. Therefore I don't see how it can be a slander to say that the United States government are empirically corrupt and 100% unreliable, for there is no way to distinguish the false data they distribute from the true. Therefore the noble intent of the Founders, to establish a carefully limited government, bridled by the Constitution, has sadly miscarried, and what has taken its place is in total effect no government whatsoever. That is the "State of the Union" today, in the one nation in human history whose founding ambition was to carry the torch for human freedom, justice, equality, truth and enlightened governance. Has any nation on Earth done better? If not, then most decidedly, there is no substitute for Self-governance.

Does that make any sense at all to you?

Love & Light,

-- Harmon
J. Harmon Grahn