“Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] “Have courage to use your own understanding!”–that is the motto of enlightenment.
…
This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom–and the most innocent of all that may be called “freedom”: freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters. Now I hear the cry from all sides: “Do not argue!” The officer says: “Do not argue–drill!” The tax collector: “Do not argue–pay!” The pastor: “Do not argue–believe!” Only one ruler in the world says: “Argue as much as you please, but obey!” We find restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent, and which advances enlightenment? I reply: the public use of one’s reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.” – Immanuel Kant, excerpts from the essay “What Is Enlightenment” (1784)
My last post, Essay #5 The Satire Paradox, included generalizations I am certain offended some. Ultimately generalizations about the intolerance of liberals and Muslims to political satire were unnecessarily overstated, confusing, inflammatory, and/or troubling to some readers. I do regret including such broad generalizations. I will go as far to say I was wrong to include them as they detracted from my overarching point:
Based on personal observations my unconfirmed hypothesis charges a quantifiable deficiency of substantive left wing political satire on main stream media platforms. More of said satire could be useful in revealing the underlying ready built mechanisms society has in place to overcome socioeconomic hurdles such as poverty.
As I’ve had time to reflect on that post, I’ve pondered existential enlightenment in parallel. I’ve asked myself these questions:
“What is ‘enlightenment’?”
“What is the purpose of ‘enlightenment’?”
“Is an ‘enlightened’ mental state inseparable from social conflict?”
—
Before I go on, now is your time to get off the boat. This will be a long read. That said, I have cut out much of the story of how I arrived at my conclusions to these questions to avoid writing a full blown book.
—
What is ‘enlightenment’?
To answer the first question (and I will build this conclusion throughout the essay):
By my determination, “enlightenment” is a varying perspective of understanding the permanent features on which the natural world and temporary human constructs are built. These permanent features are interwoven tangible and intangible foundations.
What then is the purpose of ‘enlightenment’?
Enlightenment, as I’ve concluded through unstated self evaluations, is an intermediate step in even the most practical pursuits of a goal.
First, one must self determine a desirable future outcome, a goal. Then they must seek enlightenment of the unknown that stands between them and their goal. From enlightenment comes the awareness of what is available to support and build a human construct, seen or unseen.
Although ‘enlightenment’ can present itself at random, and requires no application, ‘enlightenment’ that is found without reason most closely resembles a parked car. There’s nothing inherently right or wrong about a parked car. But the car’s purpose should be self evident.
A Necessary Aside (Where Do Goals Come From?)
There is an entire industry of people who make a living to tell others to pursue their passions, and for most people, passions don’t present themselves on a silver platter. Presumably goals aligned with passion would be like peanut butter and jelly.
I could go off on a tangent about this topic alone. And I believe rewriting the miseducation on aligning goals and passions would be worth the time. But for now I’ll cut straight to the conclusions.
Interests exist because we cannot possibly be equally compelled to all options when given choices (a natural law of universal inequality). Passion follows the pursuit on interests with perseverance. In the presence of passion comes inspiration, the goal.
If passion is the thunderstorm, inspiration is being struck by lightning (rare), and interests are tornado alley. Don’t expect to ever find a goal aligned with passion (being struck by lightning) until you start chasing the storms in tornado alley (interests, we all have them, ALWAYS).
The Short and Sweet of the Rest of this Essay
Simply, to seek enlightenment of man and nature at random is inefficient and without aligned purpose. Some means and methods of enlightenment come at the expense of social favor. But the most efficient of enlightenment processes will avoid conflict all together. This is not to say that social favor is right or wrong, or that social favor is inseparably linked to enlightenment. Most directly, enlightenment is not necessarily a random occurrence, and most often a desired result, by which minimal conflict is necessary.
Once supremely focused on goal, self prescribed enlightenment is a necessary intermediate step towards the physical manifestation of that goal.
If you only pursue steps you deem necessary toward your self-determined destiny, you are unlikely to offend those you encounter in any significant proportion, thereby maintaining an ambiance conducive to social favor.
Enlightenment is the foundation on which man chooses to build their temporary constructs. Chiefly, the intrapersonal success of said constructs will depend on the appropriate nature of the foundation for the chosen constructs.
The Rest of This Essay
From here we can dive into my understanding of social conflict in the context of “enlightenment”.
For more than a decade I’ve ventured into thoughtful (and thoughtless) entanglements of ideology with people of all ages and walks of life.
Over the years, and, what I would imagine thousands of hours, I’ve grappled with both my personal unwillingness, and the unwillingness of others, to move from a stated position.
But I’ve also been at this long enough to witness a few of my positions, and a few of my contested positions of others, change shape.
In all those hours though, by my observation, born out of the inflammatory remarks were the sparks of ideological enlightenment, revelations about the social sciences. The seemingly unnecessary strikes evoked the strongest rebuttals, or the awkward self-realizations there were no equivalent rebuttal to bare. These were the strikes that burnt a mental forest of ideas to the ground.
And in the fleeting moments between the old growth and the new growth, the actual “enlightment” is the temporary glimpse of the more permanent features beneath any nuanced forest of ideas. The new idea that grows in the old idea’s place is probably most similar to what was there before. What is important is the new found “awareness” of the permanent features that were there before, the permanent features that will remain all along. These permanent features are what support the tangible existence of life itself, and its infinite temporary forms.
Take note of this word “awareness” as I indirectly build the definition of “enlightenment”. For these purposes, “awareness” is the skill or ability to accurately predict how one interacts within their environment. Self awareness is the same definition but reflected upon one’s self.
From what I’ve observed in my entanglements of ideology though, this enlightenment was not immediate, as a forest cannot burn to the ground in a single night. This complicated any attempt to confirm said enlightenment was a causation of an inflammatory remark (either given or received).
Conventional wisdom pleads in earnest to avoid the unnecessary strikes, avoid the inducing ridicule of yourself and others. Ultimately avoid conflict (talking politics) in general. But my real world social “enlightenments” seem to be born almost exclusively out induced conflict.
“Agreeing to disagree” neither presents an obstacle nor charges a social expense (embarrassment, cognative dissonance), therefore there is no incentive, no spark, to transform a way of thinking, or redirect a way of living.
An abrassive approach has most certainly lost me favor in social circles and amongst individuals over the years. But I’ve never been much of a socially motivated individual.
With only my point of view as reference, any evaluation of my approach to enlightenment at the expense of social favor would be incomplete.
As points of comparison, what can I learn from socially revered intellectuals of the recent past?
The first words of wisdom that came to mind were those Thomas Jefferson once wrote to his daughter:
“Much better if our companion views a thing in different light than we do to leave him in quiet possession of his view. What is this use of rectifying him if the thing be unimportant? And if important, let it pass for the present and wait for a softer moment and a more conciliatory occasion of revising the subject together.”
In other words, I rephrase this quote to say: Rarely is conflict necessary, and the time is never now.
What is lost though in my translation is the emphasis on “importance”.
As part of other mental exercises I’ve evaluated importance. To many, importance is referenced common ways:
“Family is important.”
“Sleep is important.”
“The team is important.”
“Studying is important.”
Does this mean Thomas Jefferson told his daughter to argue about family, sleep, the team, and studying? No.
Importance is relative, a function of one’s individual ambitions, goals. It is quite possible that to some, family, sleep, the team, and studying are not important at all.
Take note of this word “importance” as I interpret it to mean, in essence, the assigned value of variables required to achieve one’s goals.
Before I go on about social conflict, let’s look at what Ben Franklin developed as his “Four Rules of Conduct” as a young man who not yet had an object of importance:
“Those who write of the art of poetry teach us that if we would write what may be worth the reading, we ought always, before we begin, to form a regular plan and design of our piece: otherwise, we shall be in danger of incongruity. I am apt to think it is the same as to life. I have never fixed a regular design in life; by which means it has been a confused variety of different scenes. I am now entering upon a new one: let me, therefore, make some resolutions, and form some scheme of action, that, henceforth, I may live in all respects like a rational creature.
1. It is necessary for me to be extremely frugal for some time, till I have paid what I owe.
2. To endeavour to speak truth in every instance; to give nobody expectations that are not likely to be answered, but aim at sincerity in every word and action — the most amiable excellence in a rational being.
3. To apply myself industriously to whatever business I take in hand, and not divert my mind from my business by any foolish project of growing suddenly rich; for industry and patience are the surest means of plenty.
4. I resolve to speak ill of no man whatever, not even in a matter of truth; but rather by some means excuse the faults I hear charged upon others, and upon proper occasions speak all the good I know of everybody.” — Benjamin Franklin (1726)
Benjamin Franklin wrote his “Four Rules of Conduct” at age 20. One of the lines from that work that jumps out to me:
“I have never fixed a regular design in life; by which means it has been a confused variety of different scenes.”
I take this to mean, as a younger man, without any self imagined purpose, his actions lacked importance. Thereby he was accustomed to the folly of circumstance.
Over the course of eight decades Benjamin Franklin became, by the accounts of his biographers, one of the most beloved Americans of his time. Judging by his stated fourth rule above, he at least tried avoiding conflict all together. In stride, by the same accounts, he was perhaps the most prolific scientist of the 18th century (inventing the lightning rod, and bifocals, among other notable scientific contributions). And not least of all he was an epic political negotiator, involved deeply in the Treaty with England to end the Revolutionary War among other accolades.
What am I to make of this? Ben Franklin was a well liked man, held in high regard, who by my definition, was enlightened in many areas despite avoiding conflict (my source of social enlightenment). Jefferson as well was loved by many, as his biographers attest he was conflict averse and acutely sensitive to public perception.
Both of these men navigated the sciences of the tangible and intangible world, and they did so while avoiding conflict whenever possible.
If enlightenment can be accepted simply as the awareness of the foundation that supports a category of ideas, then there are multiple ways to gain this understanding.
To keep the forest analogy from above, walking the forest first hand may take a life time, and one man may never reveal the nuances of the landscapes, caverns, lakes, and streams. But enlisting enough help, if possible, can uncover the vast expanse in full detail, so long as the parties work together to disseminate this information. More over, general advancements in other fields may be applied when relevant to expedite enlightenment (think satellites, ground penetrating radar, drones).
In the realm of physical science enlightenment, we have so many tools that conflict is rarely necessary.
In the social realm, enlightenment is significantly more difficult, because the science behind our interactions with each other does not manifest itself well in a physical form. And thereby, perhaps, induced conflict is the best way to gain enlightenment (in the absence of better available methods).
That said, my essential take away from Franklin and Jefferson is that when you focus your desires with importance, conflict is rarely necessary.
I implicitly deduce that minimal social enlightenment (beyond what was readily available by 18th century terms) is necessary. Another way I can say this, the timeless social fundamentals are enough for most people to proceed and manifest their desires within the tangible world.
Simply, to seek enlightenment of man and nature at random is inefficient and without aligned purpose. Some means and methods of enlightenment come at the expense of social favor. But the most efficient of enlightenment processes will avoid conflict all together. This is not to say that social favor is right or wrong, or that social favor is inseparably linked to enlightenment. Most directly, enlightenment is not necessarily a random occurrence, and most often a desired result, by which minimal conflict is necessary.
Once supremely focused on goal, self prescribed enlightenment is a necessary intermediate step towards the physical manifestation of that goal.
If you only pursue steps you deem necessary toward your self-determined destiny, you are unlikely to offend those you encounter in any significant proportion, thereby maintaining an ambiance conducive to social favor.
Enlightenment is the foundation on which man chooses to build their temporary constructs. Chiefly, the intrapersonal success of said constructs will depend on the appropriate nature of the foundation for the chosen constructs.