The story of the tower of Babel presents a conundrum that has ever shadowed human history. In Genesis, God seemed wary of what Babylonians might accomplish since they all spoke the same language: “And the Lord said, ‘Truly, they are one people and they all have the same language. This is the beginning of what they will do. Hereafter they will not be restrained from anything which they determine to do’ (Genesis, 11:6).” And so He “confused” their speech and scattered them all over the earth. As a consequence, that tower designed to reach to the very heavens would never be completed. What was true in Genesis is still true today: little can be accomplished without communication and cooperation.

Biblical scholars would deftly point out that the story of Babel tells us that God wanted Hebrew to be the primary language reserved for the use of His people in their promised land. Gentiles would never be as united as the Jews since they spoke dissimilar languages and were broadly dispersed. But even today Hebrew is not the universal language of all Jews, not even in Israel. Moreover, however true it may be that language unites and identifies a people, it does not always result in effective communication and cooperation. Several European countries, for example, tried to make language the unifying element in the establishment of empires. But the colonial system eventually crumbled. Likewise, Russian was always the “official” language of the Soviet Confederation, but it did not hold that empire together either. Although Genesis tells us how the building of a ziggurat can be stopped, it also implies that, unrestrained, the Babylonians might have accomplished “anything they determine to do.” After all, they were “one people,” implying that they were of one mind. Even though there are those who have argued that a universal language and shared values might lead to a new world order where peace and justice would reign, I think history tells us the path to this utopia is filled with potholes and detours. Countries may conquer their neighbors and reengineer their linguistic and cultural forms, but they cannot compel cooperation. Something else, much more subtle, is required.

The difference in language and culture is not the main obstacle to a stable world order where peace and justice are secured for all. In fact, that difference is merely a feature of an underlying reality. We perceive things after our own individual fashion, even to the extent of disagreeing on the facts. We build a meaningful framework for ourselves where all the puzzle pieces can be neatly fit. That framework is based upon our personal life experiences to include not only our familial, social, and cultural context, but also our freely chosen path through life’s maze of options. In a very real sense, we create the milieu of our personal lives: it could be said that we traverse our lifespans in an ambient allusion. Truly, the Babylonians had no more difficulty in building their tower than we do today, navigating amidst all the “isms,” self-interests, and biases that intersect in our contemporary media storm. Nevertheless, progress is somehow made, but how? Take the American political system as an example. It is built around a check and balance system where compromise is required. But compromise too often leads to mediocre or half-baked solutions: when all self-interests are served, sometimes the best solution is bypassed. In our diverse society, various group moral codes can conflict over issues of life, death, and the very foundation of social organization (e.g., abortion, contraception, torture, the social safety net, the justification for preemptive force, the role of government in the lives of private citizens, and so on). And yet, over time, this dissonance in our society is often overcome or banished with the dissolution of a failed social structure, like slavery. Whether it is the fall of Rome, the end of feudalism, or democratically inspired revolutions, history provides many examples where tipping points are reached and humanity leaps forward. What inspires such change? And how can we grapple with our problems today to bring about the next leap forward?

Well, I believe we need to change the context. My myopic perspective, honed from my life’s experience, will not likely provide the answer; and nor will yours. We need a broader perspective that bridges the individual to the collective. Art, for example, lives in the creative world of imagination where inspiration is collective. Observing a work of art is the act of participating in that initial inspiration. That participation needs no common language, for it is a priori the basis of subsequent expression. The indefinable emotions that arrest our mind before nature’s power, the source of human suffering, or our mortality are transcendent of our ego psyche. These experiences are not only shared by all of us, but are expansive of the individual perspective. It is in this manner that the collective will can take a discontinuous leap forward and overcome moral boundaries that justify the suppression of women and minorities, the exercise of preemptive force over a non-threatening people, the accumulation of power and resources to the exclusion of the vast majority, and so on. Framing a new context means being open to intuition, that receptivity to the light that shines universally in each one of us. The founders of our constitutional government, for example, shared a common vision that breached individual differences. They were equally inspired to recognize a fundamental truth: any social structure must secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all. As a result, America is now the oldest democracy in the world. What new vision can unite a world where language barriers will no longer inhibit the spread of ideas? Could we face a future energy crisis or the specter of a polluted planet with diminished resources if we viewed our context more universally than corporate, national, or regional perspectives? Would not what inspired the Dutch to build dykes motivate every sea-level city from New York to San Francisco to Hong Kong to take similar measures? Or, because a rising sea has no impact on Dallas, Seattle, Berlin or Beijing, would we fail to act as one people? In other words, would we simply fail to see the broader context?

Of course, that broader vision alone will not in itself breach the boundaries I reference. We need compassion for each other—for all races and gender—beyond the restrictions of language, culture, religious beliefs, and physical distance. But before compassion can even be fired in our hearts, we need the light of a collective awareness. Each of us exists within and depends upon the life support systems of a tiny planet, revolving around an inconsequential star in one of many galaxies. We are, in fact, “one people,” alike in nature AND in circumstance. “This is the beginning of what they will do,” else we (“they”), scattered and confused, will accomplish nothing.

It is true that we humans are wired to make sense of our lives. But when that sense is focused on ego and personal context, humanity as a whole makes no sense at all.