Sorry...I couldn't resist that.
I'm assuming you mean what do I call "the collection of forces that exist outside the individual", right?
Simple:
I don't.
Since the only realities we can ever perceive are all subjective (either individual subjective intrepretation or variously formed collective intrepretations), I'm not sure naming something we will never actually encounter or be able to describe serves any purpose.
Yes, there are forces that exist that are not directly under the control of any one person, but I think these are better described individually rather than collectively, since that is how we name them.
If there even is an 'objective reality' it is basically just a bunch of molecules and other subatomic particles arranged together in various densities, combinations and kinetic energy levels, something like a lumpy soup. The fact that we have given individual names to some of the lumps in the soup is just a function of creating context for our subjective realities. Even "reality" is just an abstract concept we invented, a model that served some purpose at some time in the past.
"Seperation" is a subjective concept, much like the political borders found on a map. Could countries exist without the subjective seperation between them, one from another. The same goes for all parts of the whole.
In other words, naming that which is described and given context by our individual subjective perceptions makes it subjective by default.
It needs no name. We'll never be able to objectively perceive it.
It just IS.
One note: for most crude, practical purposes, we can treat the wide-scale subjective 'reality' that has developed as an objective reality (in much the same fashion as you can still use Newtonian physics in many everyday cases...Einsteinian physics are overkill and only required in certain situations.
Quantum mechanics is one of the areas that the fallacy of an objective reality becomes apparent, along with metaphysics and philosophy.
[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: FoX ]