Seperateness, Intraconnectedness & The 8-Circuit Model
If you prefer to listen along while you read, or instead of reading, here’s an audio version of this post for you:
One of the core theories of Social Alchemy is that humans are born whole and we die whole, but in between birth and death, we become experts at forgetting truths and believing illusions. One especially convincing illusion is that of separateness itself; the belief that there is a distinct self that is concretely, distinctly, and certainly separate from everything else in the great big “out there” of the world.
Wholeness, separateness, and intraconnectedness
One way to think about the sense of wholeness that we experience at birth and death reminds me a lot of intraconnectedness, a term coined by Dan Siegel and explored in depth in his book Intraconnected: MWe (Me + We) as the Integration of Self, Identity, and Belonging. It describes a feeling of connection and belonging among the different parts of the individual self, like the body, mind, and ego, but also among parts that might be more commonly thought to be separate, or external to us, like other people, animals, plants, and more. The idea of intraconnectedness as opposed to interconnectedness is that thinking of all these different aspects as separate from the self is not the whole picture. In a truer sense, or at least in a wider one, the notion of the whole self also can include our communities, our surrounding environments, the rest of the world, and even the universe—or multiverse—at large.
But if intraconnectedness is our truest truth, why do we experience the feeling of distinctness so completely? And is it really accurate to say that feeling is an illusion, as convincing as it is? Personally, I’m not always so sure, but it helps me to think of separateness as illusory not in the way that it doesn’t exist at all, but rather, it’s not real to me in the same way that a fake plant is not real. It is still something that you can see and touch, and still has an impact on its surrounding environment. But, that impact is different from that of a living plant that photosynthesizes and converts carbon dioxide into oxygen, and perhaps even fixes nitrogen in soil to benefit future plants. Both the living plant and the fake plant exist in space, and both can be beautiful and even useful in their own ways, but I have a distinct sense that one has a much greater capacity to be nourishing and nurturing than the other. In the same way, wholeness feels a lot more nourishing than separateness, as tempting as it can be to let the mind or the ego act like they’re the full, real deal.
Maybe there’s some biased thinking at play here: it’s definitely possible that it’s my opinion that identifying as whole rather than separate is more nourishing and pleasing that makes me believe it is more true to identify as whole rather than separate. The word truth, after all, implies so much certainty. Too much. Personally, while I do not feel very convinced by the idea that I am a distinct self as the whole truth of what it means to exist, and I do believe that wholeness feels more true and more complete as a way of understanding myself, I do not exist in a state of having fully internalized this truth in some ineffable way. Lots of people call that enlightenment and believe it’s possible to achieve that state of being. Whether I ever find myself there or not, in the meantime, I find a lot of appreciation for Dan Siegel’s idea of intraconnectedness. It’s a bridge between separateness and wholeness that honors that both of these states are true in their own ways, even if those ideas conflict with one another sometimes. That’s ok! Conflicting things can be true at the same time, or at least, that’s another theory that Social Alchemy holds.
Separateness and safety
So, if the idea of a separate self is not the whole truth, why do humans evolve to believe in it? To say I have no answer to this question is an understatement. I often wonder why, if humans have evolved to rely so deeply on interdependence as our primary survival strategy in response to bearing such immature young relative to other mammals, we did not also evolve to be somehow more effective at cooperating with one another. Ant colonies, hives of honeybees, and mycelial networks all provide such incredibly advanced examples of harmonious collaboration, while we humans are both blessed and burdened with the experience of feeling so totally distinct from one another.
Dan Siegel suggests that the concept of certainty, including certainty about one’s own identity, offers a feeling of comfort and safety. Looking to Timothy Leary’s 8-circuit model of consciousness, the connection between security and identity is clear. It is embodied in the space between circuits one and two, both foundational survival intelligences. Circuit one the most primary intelligence—understanding what is safe and what is unsafe. The experience of the womb, where it’s difficult to imagine distinguishing anything from anything else, offers wholeness and ultimate safety and comfort. After being born, humans begin to experience different sensations, some comfortable and some frustrating. This is the essence of developing circuit one intelligence, and this distinction paves the way for perceiving difference, and identifying that difference with separateness.
Circuit two is where the concept of the self evolves. Through relationship and comparison to other people, young children begin to understand themselves as beings with specific emotions, needs, desires, and traits, and begin to navigate how their feelings and expressions can have the power to influence the world around them. They also observe the same in terms of how their family members can influence the family dynamic around them, too. Making sense of the patterns in these influences and traits makes up the stuff of identifying the ego, one of the parts of the self. It’s no accident that circuit two, the intelligence of emotion and identity, is the next layer of sophistication that human beings develop on top of our understanding of what is safe or not safe.
Expanding back into wholeness
It is not until Circuit seven intelligence is awakened that we humans begin to feel truly attuned once again to the idea that we are not only connected to other people and beings and to the past and future, but also are fundamentally a part of this larger story of being. Circuit eight, the final intelligence in Leary’s 8-Circuit model of consciousness, is the understanding that our true nature is the void. This is the ultimate dissolution of the idea of separateness. It reminds me of how the number 0, that was once most commonly represented as a mere point, has now long been most commonly represented with its round egg-shape, honoring that only in true nothingness does the greatest field of possibility exist. The totality of all that is possible exists in the void and only in the void—as soon as anything exists, the field of what could be is now a branching set of possibilities. Infinite in its own way, perhaps, but undoubtedly a smaller version of infinity.
A cultural caveat on perception of separateness and the 8-Circuit model
Dan Siegel, Timothy Leary, and I, nik, the author of this post, all have something important in common—we were all born and raised in the United States, known for its highly individualistic culture. All of our experiences grappling with wholeness, separateness, intraconnectedness, and connections between the circuits and other beings are culturally informed by this shared starting point.
Leary’s model in particular imposes both a linearity and hierarchy on personal development towards expanding into true wholeness that likely would not register in the same way for many folks raised in different cultural environments. My own reframing of the 8-circuit model attempts to remove the hierarchy, shifting from lower vs. higher circuits to survival and post-survival or expansive circuits. So far, I’ve still presented it linearly, even though I think a spiralic way of moving through the circuits rings with more truth.
Ultimately, this culturally specific perspective represents a profound limitation in how well these thoughts might generalize more broadly that would not feel appropriate to leave unnamed and unacknowledged. If you have feedback or thoughts to share with me on this or anything else sparked by your time with this post, please reach out! I am always working towards better understanding the blind spots I have as a result of being raised in such a commonly centered and privileged cultural perspective, and I love talking about the topics of this post in general!
If you’d like to explore how these concepts come alive in you personally, I’d be honored to serve as a facilitator for you. Please check out my offerings or feel free to book an intro call or session directly online.
