From me → We → I

The portal between us: why your awakening needs other people

The Discovery

Many assume that spiritual awakening is fundamentally a solo journey. You meditate alone. You contemplate alone. You have your breakthrough moment alone. Then maybe, if you’re lucky, you find others who understand what you’ve experienced.

My first experience of a different possibility began over forty years ago, at the Findhorn Foundation in Scotland. They taught about a consciousness which arises in and through any group, and which overlights and guides it. They referred to this consciousness as a group “angel” and taught that the function of what they called the focalizer of any group is not to be a leader but instead to bring this consciousness as fully as possible into form through the group. And I learned about this not as theory but as living experience.

I was living in the Netherlands at the time and, after my first visit to the Findhorn Community, served for five years (from 1980 to 1985) as a contact person, giving informational talks and, most significantly holding monthly gathering for people who had visited the community and spent one or more intensive weeks there. Many came feeling that they had experienced something “there” which had at least partly slipped away. In focalizing those groups I was deeply touched to see, again and again, how in coming together as a group people reconnected with the experience they had had at Findhorn not as something “there”, but as something inside themselves which they could have anywhere.

I had experienced the profound transformative power of the group field itself in bringing people back into contact with their own divine essence.

This was my first experience of what many now call “We-space”. The recognition that there is an entire dimension of consciousness that can only be accessed together.

Not “it’s nice to practice with others.” Not “community support is helpful.” But literally: certain territories of consciousness cannot be fully entered alone.

This led to what I now call the me→We→I framework. I recognize that consciousness frameworks abound. What distinguishes this particular model is that it addresses a dimension most spiritual teachings miss entirely—the necessary role of mutual presence in stable awakening.

The Territory Most Maps Don’t Show

Most spiritual teachings operate in one of two territories:

Territory One: The me→I path This is the classic solo spiritual journey. Meditation. Contemplation. Presence practices. Teachers like Eckhart Tolle pointing to the “now.” You work to transcend your conditioned, small-self identity (“me”) and realize your true nature as universal consciousness (“I”).

This works. People have genuine awakenings this way. But there’s a problem: these awakenings often prove unstable. Without relational grounding, people can float into spiritual bypass, lose their embodiment, or struggle to integrate the recognition into functional daily life. Even profound awakenings can leave practitioners isolated, unable to share or ground what they’ve experienced, sometimes leading to psychological crisis or difficulty functioning in the world.

There’s a deeper issue too: when awakening bypasses the relational field entirely, it can lead to disembodied spirituality—consciousness recognizing itself but struggling to fully inhabit human form. The goal isn’t to escape embodiment but to bring Source consciousness more fully INTO embodiment, into relationship, into life.

Territory Two: The me→We path

This is the relational/interpersonal territory. Various forms of circle practice, relational practices, group process work. You learn to be more authentically present with others, to communicate more deeply, to hold space for shared exploration.

This work develops crucial capacities and can create genuine interpersonal warmth and emotional safety. However, interpersonal connection, while valuable, is not the same as accessing the Field dimension that opens when practice points explicitly toward the transcendent. The me→We→I framework addresses this second territory—where mutual presence becomes a portal to Source itself.

The Missing Link: The We as Portal

Across four decades of participating in and facilitating collective consciousness practice, I have discovered that the We is not just a pleasant addition to solo practice. The We is the necessary portal.

By “We-space” I mean something quite specific, not just “being together” or “group harmony.”

We-space is what emerges when people come together with a particular quality of mutual presence. There’s a palpable shift in the field. Something shows up between and among you that wasn’t there before. An intelligence. A quality of awareness that’s not reducible to any individual’s consciousness.

This recognition is ancient. Jesus taught: “When two or more are gathered in my name, I am in the midst of them.” Through the me→We→I framework, “in my name” can be understood as individuals (me) gathering consciously (We) in recognition of their shared Source (I), and “I am in the midst” as that deeper experience of universal consciousness which reveals itself uniquely through We-space. The pattern has been recognized across wisdom traditions—what the me→We→I framework offers is an architecture that explains why and how this emergence occurs.

You might have experienced this:

• In certain conversations where suddenly everyone is speaking from somewhere deeper. Time and the space between you may even seem to disappear.

• In meditation groups when the field becomes almost tangibly thick

• In creative collaborations when ideas emerge that nobody individually thought of

• In moments of shared grief or joy when something transcendent moves through the group

That’s We-space. The crucial recognition is this: We-space is not just a pleasant by-product of people being together spiritually. It’s a distinct dimension of consciousness with its own qualities and territories.

The Full Architecture: me→We→I

The framework that has emerged from this practice can be articulated as follows:

me = Your conditioned individual consciousness

This is you as you typically experience yourself. Your personality, your history, your patterns, your sense of being a separate self navigating life. This isn’t “bad”—it’s the necessary starting point. You can’t transcend what you haven’t first inhabited.

We = The collective/mutual dimension

This is what opens when we meet in a particular quality of shared presence. It’s not my consciousness or your consciousness—it’s the field that emerges between and among us. This dimension has its own intelligence, its own capacity to know things that individuals alone cannot access.

I = Universal/divine consciousness recognizing itself

This is what some traditions call “Buddha nature,” “Christ consciousness,” “Atman,” “Source”—the recognition that what you fundamentally are is not separate from the consciousness that animates everything. Not as a concept but as lived reality.

The Movement: Why Sequence Matters

me→We: You can’t enter We-space while remaining entirely identified with your separate self. There’s a loosening required. You have to be willing to risk the “me” softening its boundaries. This is why We-space practice inherently cultivates certain capacities—like listening deeply, holding paradox, tolerating uncertainty, allowing emergence. A quality of safety and openness allows our nervous systems to settle enough for deeper dimensions to become accessible.

We→I: When We-space stabilizes, something remarkable becomes possible. Because the We is already a kind of transcendence (transcending the separate self), it provides a ground—a stable field—from which the recognition of universal consciousness can emerge. You’re not making the leap from isolated “me” to infinite “I” (which is inherently unstable). You’re allowing the “I” to become visible through the already-transcendent quality of the We.

The Return Movement (We←I): When the “I” recognition occurs within We-space, it then enriches the We. The collective field becomes more transparent to source, more aligned with what wants to emerge evolutionarily. But the movement doesn’t stop there—it continues as I→We→me: Source consciousness descending more fully into individual embodiment. This isn’t a one-time thing—it’s a spiraling movement, each cycle deepening the capacity and bringing Source more fully present in human form. The experience of consciousness coming from this greater “I” becomes foundational. “We” are experienced as sourced from that, and that identity and authority works down into and transforms even the personal “me”—not transcending our humanity but bringing divine presence more fully into it.

Why This Matters: Beyond Theory

This isn’t just another elegant consciousness map. It has profound practical implications:

1. It explains why solo awakenings can be unstable

If you go me→I without the grounding of We-space, you don’t have the relational/collective field to stabilize the recognition. You can have a genuine opening and then struggle to integrate it because you’re trying to hold infinity within the container of a still-separate self.

2. It distinguishes authentic collective practice from “spiritual community theater”

Not all groups are accessing We-space. Some are just me-me-me-me sitting in a circle. True We-space has particular qualities: emergence, mutual presence, something showing up that’s more than the sum of individuals. The me→We→I framework gives us language to discern the difference.

3. It shows why We-space practice isn’t just “nice” but evolutionarily essential

If consciousness is genuinely evolving (and I believe it is), then the capacity for collective/mutual consciousness is not optional—it’s the next developmental territory. Humanity doesn’t just need more individually awakened people. We need the capacity to access shared consciousness deliberately and skillfully.

4. It provides immunity against the “guru trap”

When We-space is understood as a legitimate dimension with its own authority, you don’t need a mediating figure to access the transcendent. The field itself becomes the teacher. This dramatically reduces the potential for spiritual abuse, because authority is distributed rather than centralized.

5. It makes sense of why communities fracture despite teaching unity

This pattern repeats so often in the field of spiritual communities and We-space work: communities teaching unity keep fracturing over authority issues. Why? Because they haven’t fully integrated the me→We→I architecture. They’re still operating from “me” claiming authority over “We” rather than allowing “I” to express through distributed “We-space.”

6. It reframes the goal from transcendence to incarnation

The me→We→I framework isn’t about escaping the body, the world, or human experience. It’s about Source consciousness learning to be fully present in form. The movement isn’t just ascending (me→We→I) but also descending (I→We→me): universal consciousness becoming more fully embodied through mutual recognition. This is incarnational spirituality, not escape spirituality. The sacred is realized not by leaving human life behind but by bringing divine presence more fully into it.

What This Looks Like in Practice

At Sacred Ground, the online spiritual community I’ve been facilitating since 2009 (with intensive practice sessions multiple times weekly since 2018), we work with this framework directly—though most participants initially don’t think in these terms.

The structure is simple:

• We gather online

• Brief silence to settle

• Each person shares from their edge (mandatory, even if brief—no passive participation)

• The field itself does most of the teaching

• Minimal facilitation, maximum emergence

• Sharing alternates between the whole group and small breakouts in twos or threes, which allows more sharing and a deeper intimacy between participants—yet an intimacy which has an almost impersonal quality despite its depth

What happens:

• The “me” begins to relax its grip (you have to show up authentically, you can’t hide)

• The “We” becomes palpable (there’s a distinct shift when the field coordinates)

• Openings to “I” occur naturally (moments when source is transparently present)

• Source becomes more fully embodied (participants discover they can hold divine presence while fully human, grounded, engaged with life)

• People discover capacities they didn’t know they had (the We knows things individuals don’t)

This isn’t complex or mystical in an inaccessible way. It’s remarkably ordinary—which is part of its power. The extraordinary is available in the midst of the ordinary when the right conditions are present.

The Technical Background: Why This Framework Works

In parallel with my spiritual explorations starting with the Findhorn community, I spent years in research on human and computer speech recognition at various academic institutions. I worked at AT&T Bell Labs on distributed intelligence systems and was the author of a patent in network architecture that anticipated aspects of how modern AI systems coordinate (US Patent 6,192,338.)

What I learned there applies directly to consciousness work: coherent intelligence emerges through the coordination of specialized, autonomous components that maintain both their individuality and their connection to the whole.

This is exactly the architecture of me→We→I:

• Individual consciousness (me) must remain distinct—not dissolved

• Collective coordination (We) emerges through authentic connection

• Universal intelligence (I) becomes accessible through the coordinated field

• Each level maintains its integrity while participating in the larger pattern

The technical work and the spiritual work are isomorphic—they’re exploring the same principles in different domains.

The Lineage: Standing on Giants’ Shoulders While Adding Something New

I need to be clear about lineage. This framework builds on decades of work by others:

• The Findhorn Foundation’s teaching about “overlighting consciousness” and group attunement

• Patricia Albere’s powerful articulation of “mutual awakening” and evolutionary relationships

• David Bohm’s distinction between “implicate” and “explicate” orders of reality

• Jean Gebser’s “Ever-Present Origin” and the emergence of integral consciousness

• Ken Wilber’s integral theory and developmental frameworks

• Kathleen McGowan’s teaching about sacred union and the integration of love’s multiple forms

• The broader field of practitioners exploring collective consciousness

I’m not claiming to have invented We-space practice. What I am claiming is this: the me→We→I framework provides a uniquely clear architecture for understanding why the collective dimension is not optional but essential for stable awakening.

Others have described the experience of We-space beautifully. Others have mapped stages of consciousness development comprehensively. What I am doing is synthesizing these into a simple, memorable framework that explains:

• Why you can’t skip the We

• Why the We is a portal, not a destination

• Why solo awakening tends toward instability

• Why collective practice isn’t just supportive but foundational

The Evolutionary Context: Why Now?

We live in a moment of profound fragmentation. Politically, socially, ecologically—the inability to access genuinely shared reality is arguably our species’ most urgent crisis.

At the same time, technology has created unprecedented capacity for global coordination. We can connect with anyone, anywhere, instantly. But we’re connecting as isolated “me’s”—broadcasting opinions, defending positions, tribal signaling.

What if we could learn to access We-space at scale? Not hive mind. Not groupthink. But genuine collective consciousness that includes and transcends individual perspective?

This isn’t fantasy. It’s the natural next step in human development. We’ve done me-consciousness extraordinarily well (modernity’s great achievement). We’re now learning We-consciousness—and it’s messy, difficult, prone to shadow dynamics, because we’re early in this territory.

And this isn’t about humanity transcending our bodies and ascending to some ethereal plane. It’s about Source consciousness becoming more fully present in human form, through human relationship, in human community. The evolutionary edge isn’t escape from matter but the fuller incarnation of spirit.

The me→We→I framework offers a map for this transition. Not the map, but a map that’s emerged from four decades of practice, tested in community, grounded in both spiritual lineage and technical understanding.

The Invitation

You have likely experienced glimpses of We-space, moments when something more than your individual self became present in collaboration or conversation.

The question is: what if that’s not just a pleasant accident but a doorway to an entire dimension of consciousness you could learn to access deliberately?

What if your spiritual development isn’t complete until you learn to stand in We-space?

What if the awakening humanity needs isn’t more enlightened individuals but the capacity for collective wisdom?

This is the territory Sacred Ground explores. Simple structure. Regular practice. Free access. The field itself as teacher. People discovering together what can only be discovered together.

Not because solo practice doesn’t matter—it absolutely does. But because the full architecture of awakening includes the middle step most maps leave out: the We as essential portal, not optional enhancement.

And because the ultimate goal isn’t to transcend embodiment but to bring Source consciousness more fully into it—to be, as the Findhorn community taught, “focalizers” through whom divine consciousness expresses itself in human form, in human relationship, in the sacred ground of shared embodied presence.

About the Framework

The me→We→I framework emerged from decades of practice in collective consciousness, a technical background in distributed intelligence systems and the integration of multiple spiritual and developmental frameworks. It represents a synthesis meant to be shared, tested, refined by practice rather than protected as intellectual property. The evolution of consciousness is a collective endeavor—which is precisely the point.

Stephen Marcus lives in southern France with his wife Barbara. He facilitates Sacred Ground, www.sacredground.us, an online We-space practice community, multiple times weekly. Former experimental psychologist (PhD Cambridge, England) and AT&T Bell Labs researcher, he brings both scientific rigor and spiritual depth to understanding how collective consciousness emerges.

Reflection Questions for Readers

1. When have you experienced something like We-space—a quality of shared presence where something “more” showed up?

2. How does the me→We→I framework help you make sense of your spiritual journey so far?

3. What would it mean to take We-space practice as seriously as solo meditation?

4. Where do you see the need for collective consciousness capacity in your life, your community, the world?

5. What would it take for you to experiment with this? To find or create a practice space where the We can emerge?

This article represents work-in-progress articulation of a living framework. Feedback, questions, and practice reports welcome.