I is We

"I is We." My husband uttered the phrase over coffee at Baker's Square on my birthday. He was watching galaxies form from undisturbed drops of cream in his cup, a hobby he enjoys at every opportunity. The words stuck in my imagination not only because they were grammatically rebellious but because they expressed the idea so simply.

When we entered the restaurant, each of us had held vestibule doors for an exiting patron, I on the restaurant side and my husband on the parking lot side. My husband was bothered because his act of courtesy had been plundered by another who, though unencumbered and in full view of the pie-laden woman we were helping, dodged through the open door before the intended. After discounting the idea that the inconsiderate one might not have seen the other, we concluded that she must have felt she was entitled to go first. It was simply a selfish impulse that might have been generated by any number of unknown factors, but what it all boiled down to was that this woman was just not in the same place, philosophically, at that moment. We have all done selfish or unthinking acts, I reminded my husband, and while we try to minimize the flaws in ourselves, we should be patient and sympathetic toward others. While he accepted my argument, he remained irritated. He wondered aloud, "When will people see that I is We?"

This simple concept has occurred to wise men through the ages. It lies at the root of most religions and many great thinkers have expressed their own versions of this "golden rule." It has been repeated through history as one of the universal truths, with some of the earliest examples coming from some of the earliest writings more than 4000 years ago:

"Do to the doer to cause that he do." The Eloquent Peasant (Egypt-Middle Kingdom)

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." Epictetus

"Do not do to others that which we do not want them to do to us." Confucius

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss."

T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien

"One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter." Dhammapada

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self." Mahabharata

"He who desires his own good should avoid causing any harm to a living being." Suman Suttam

"Love your neighbor as yourself." Leviticus 19:18

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Qur'an

"Whom should I despise, since the one Lord made us all." Guru Granth Sahib

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Bahá'u'lláh

"Three times what thou gives returns to thee." Wiccan Rule of Three

"Be excellent to each other." Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

When we examine these maxims, we find recognition that people are all connected. We see that what hurts one, hurts all, and what helps one, helps all. Kindness to another is a benefit to yourself because I is We.

I have a feeling that this concept is woven into our human nature. Anthropologically speaking, the idea makes sense. Man is a communal animal, and pack bonds, pack safety and well-being would have helped early man survive some pretty hairy dangers. Yet we can also see, on that fundamental level, that looking out for #1 is a pretty basic survival urge. As a primitive man, you wouldn't live long without your pack, but you wouldn't live at all without you. So both ideas exist at the primal core of human nature, both linked to survival and both impulses constantly warring for dominance. If you've spent time with young children, you've probably observed how generosity and selfishness can exist simultaneously and completely naturally in one being.

Here in the modern age, neither side has become outmoded. We may think that we would be fine setting aside one or the other philosophy, but the truth is that we still call on both for survival. We may have grown independent and isolated, capable of doing amazing things alone through technology, but if we look deeper, we see that every "independent" activity is dependent on others. We may fry an egg for our lunch, for example, but could we also raise the hen, collect the egg, process the fat to fry it in, generate the electricity to run the refrigerator we manufactured to keep it cool and craft the pan to cook the egg? The more knowledge mankind amasses, the more specialized that knowledge becomes.

Likewise, though we may think total selflessness is admirable or ideal, it would be impractical to never think of your own needs. How long could you care for others if you never care for yourself? Maybe, in a perfect world we would all be taking care of each other, but we're not there yet.

As we discussed this tottering balance, my husband and I both recognized that it would take a major change in mankind's basic programming for all of society to unconsciously act unselfishly. That heartfelt recognition of our interconnected nature, without conscious intent to recognize it, could only come through a kind of transformation of human nature, a kind of philosophical mutation. Discouraging as that may be, he has faith we'll get there and declared it as the universe of his coffee spread into a warm, sweet, even tan colour. In the meantime, the world will have to keep turning on the conscious recognition. We'll have to stop and think about each other and about how our actions affect more than just their direct objects. We will practice our awakening and let ourselves be reminded by words like "I is We."