The We Decade: This Revisionsist's View Of History,
is the companion piece to
WE Not Me.
It's one of those supposedly cool, hip,
monikers, one of those in the know labels. And we're so
fond of putting labels on to things and events, which - for better or
for worse - stick. Accurate or not, the trite characterization of the
1970s as "The Me Decade", and of those of us who matured
during its tenure, as "The Me Generation", has endured. Many of
the questionable, tenuous assumptions which led to these
characterizations drew on what was popularly yet erroneously believed
to be true about
Werner Erhard's work
of those days, the same
which was a precursor to both the Forum and to the
The simple truth is those monikers just aren't accurate. Anyone
completely experiencing what
offered (if indeed they were looking for really fitting and accurately
characterizing monikers) would have
the phrases "The We Decade" instead, as much more apropos
of this zeitgeist than "The Me Decade", and therefore "The
We Generation" instead of "The Me Generation". Anyone
offered, knows I get it for myself (yes that does mean me)
interimly but only temporarily. Getting it for myself ie getting
it for me, while it's profound, really is only temporary. Ultimately
however, if I'm going to get it and keep it ongoingly, I'm
called to relate to you (that means we) in a way that we
all get it too. This necessitates a
One of the most elementary
shifts called for which facilitates taking
(and when you're taking
it's the sure sign, the litmus test if you will, that you
got it in the first place - as
may have said) is the shifting of the
from "you or me" (survival) to "you and me"
(co-operation, sustainability). Make no error about this: it takes a
really big individual (a big me), even an already
reasonably successful individual (an already reasonably
successful me) to even entertain the possibility that the paradigm we
live in is set up for a "you or me"
(as delivered by the
is eloquent testimony to the terrible consequences of blindly
perpetuating our "you or me"
the world of
only begins with
of me. But it doesn't stop there. If it did, individual "me"
wouldn't be complete.
is only complete with the advent of a new paradigm in which to live:
the paradigm for a "you and me"
Thus I suspect whomever
the monikers "The Me Decade" and "The Me Generation" only
to half of the presentation, and maybe didn't
to the presentation at all.
There's no telling
is this way - suffice to say it just is this way. Indeed that
statement is maddeningly
Yet in all maddening
can be found a profundity which is elusive at first, then subsequently
If there were an experiential explanation (rather than an
intellectual one) for
it is this way, it's
who I am
ie me the individual, can't sustain
who we are
ie we the human race, humanity. It could be this way
because although it may appear illusorily separate for
each and every one of us individual human beings, when it comes to the
there's only one (as the Highlander may have said).
Now, is that "the truth"? Maybe. But I really don't know
if it is or if it isn't. I really don't know
it is this way. I'm just making up this experiential
explanation. It does seem to fit. And it does intuitively seem
plausible that this is the way it
and that this is the way it's always
throughout all the millennia, worldwide.
I assert if we are going to
cool, hip, characterizing, and accurate monikers at all,
that is if we insist on putting labels on things and events at all,
then instead of "The Me Decade" and "The Me Generation" designating
the 1970s and its denizens, "The We Decade" and "The We Generation"
would have behooved us way better.