CHAPTER TWO -- E Arthur M. Jackson
Copyright 2001, 2003, 2006
THE ENLIGHTENED PERSON AND ENLIGHTENED COMMUNITY
.
2. The Ways of Wisdom are attempts to specify the beliefs necessary to become and remain an Enlightened Person and can only be fully actualized within an Enlightened Community.
Because human beings are social animals they can only be fulfilled in their deepest needs within a nurturing, encouraging, growth promoting, supportive environment. This point has not been properly addressed up to this time. Since Homo sapiens sapiens evolved the language ability and became Modern Humans they have had a potential that has never been fully actualized within any society. The hunter-gatherer way of life allowed total congruency between the individual and group up to the time of the evolution of the language ability. After that it has at the fundamental level been a failure. (Looking from the perspective of a Science of Ethics. From within the group it often looks great!)
Rather than helping humanity to re-invent itself, a hunter-gatherer group forces/allows its members to live in their pre-language style, and function at the pre-language ability level. It does not even develop the individual's ability to become literate and thereby directly tap into the knowledge and experiences of past generations except as captured in folk legends. Unlike in urban and industrial/ technological societies, individual members have no opportunity to rise to levels of their highest individual achievement and develop some of their greatest potentials except to the degree that these potentials fit into the hunter-gatherer mode of living. On the other hand urban and industrial societies have not provided an environment that allows full congruency between every member and the society. There is always an underclass that is locked out. Only now have we accumulated enough experience and knowledge to begin to understand how to go about building an environment that is congruent with our "wisdom" potential. Doing this will require bringing together all who share the vision as well as the appropriate available knowledge so we can focus successfully on this issue. The Ways of Wisdom are presented in the hope that they will help in this effort.
The first step in creating a community in which to actualize the Ways of Wisdom is to develop small focused groups which I call "Wisdom Groups." (See "Organizing for an Enlightened Community.") A Wisdom Group's primary goal would be to bring together persons interested in a Science of Ethics. It is my hope that Wisdom Groups would develop to the point where they would be able to set up Centers For the Practical Application of Wisdom. These Centers would work to assemble a select team of persons committed to becoming their best selves. In the process they would correct, expand, develop, and actualize the goals of this book. They would develop the variety of activities and experiences necessary to help a broader membership work toward achieving a Sustainable Belief that their Life Has Meaning. In so far as possible they would bring together the wise people of the community who accept the goal of developing a Science of Ethics. A Wisdom Group would initiate efforts to develop a Center for the Practical Application of Wisdom. All work to actualize these ideas will be difficult because without proven models many mistakes will be made so getting started will require a great deal of caution as well as tremendous optimism. However, these structures are needed to help thoughtful, gifted persons structure their efforts to develop testable theories and do the tests; i.e., gather and analyze data. And, at the same time to apply this knowledge to developing Enlightened Persons and Enlightened Communities.
[p. 2]
a. ENLIGHTENED PERSON: Such an individual is herein defined as a person who has adopted the goal of maintaining and developing the human species and reached the Tenth Level of Human Development. This includes exhibiting the highest human attributes of warmth, physical affection, honesty, truthfulness, open-mindedness, and rational thought. Such a person would not be committed to any belief that would prevent them from achieving a sustainable belief that their life has meaning.
What are the attributes of an Enlightened Person? They must be individuals who have mastered their raw "tribal" propensities and are working to fulfill their "wisdom" potential. This means they will possess a standard that will allow them to recognize the fallacies and untruths which are widely accepted and which will prevent them from accepting the same errors by another name. This standard will provide ways to help all persons achieve a sustainable belief that their life has meaning. Such persons will know themselves and be able to control their behavior and environment within the necessary limits.
Before the various aspects of the Enlightened Person are explored, it might be useful to approach directly a critical question: Can every person living today achieve a sustainable belief that their life has meaning? The short answer must be, No. We don't currently have sufficient knowledge to aid everyone in discarding the beliefs that prevent them from achieving a sustainable belief that their life has meaning. Neither do we have enough knowledge to make clear each step every person must take in order to become an Enlightened Person. However, a primary goal must be to learn how to enhance the lives of an ever-increasing number of individuals.
When thinking of a sustainable belief that one's life has meaning, the skeptic might wonder whether or not "Enlightened Persons" are not actually boring, goodie-goodies; freaks; automatons; or, peas from a single pod. What makes people into individuals and prevents their being slaves to their society, persons of no substance, stereotyped units? Is not part of what makes people interesting, vibrant, alive their irrationalities? If people always act rationally, logically, and without prejudice, would they not be rather dull persons?
Fortunately, the above need not be true. Although irrationalities make individuals unstable and apparently unpredictable, the behavior of irrational people is in reality often more stereotyped than the behavior of more rational individuals. They tend to be "driven" persons who fill their life with activity and drama. They have little insight into their motivations and real needs. Therefore, they fail to experience long term satisfaction. They tend to have a limited repertoire of behavior. They lack the spontaneity, versatility, and passion that would characterize the Enlightened Person. One need not, therefore, sacrifice oneself to be interesting to others. More important, people are not irrational because they desire to be, but because they don't know how to avoid it. Human beings become empowered and self-directed individuals as they learn insight into themselves, work through the traumatic experiences of their infancy and childhood, and receive medical assistance as necessary. Enlightened Persons' lives would be so full that the lives of current "interesting people" would seem shadow-like in comparison. To find peace of mind and yet remain creative, persons must overcome their irrationalities. Such people will not only become more helpful to their fellow humans, but more interesting in every way.
[p. 3]
A sustainable belief that one's life has meaning depends on achieving congruence between one's rational and emotional sides. To achieve a sustainable belief that one's life has meaning one's total being must be developed. Therefore, the development of both the intellectual and the emotional side of the individual (dominant and non-dominant cerebral hemispheres) must be encouraged. Folk religions appeal to the emotions. They use processes that provide emotional sustenance (which is why they provide a feeling that one's life has meaning). Unfortunately, most of them provide this emotional support at the expense of both intellectual and emotional growth. They have not encouraged development of the individual's ability to think and reason. Therefore, emotional development has been kept at an immature level. As a result of the foregoing they have been able to get away with using symbols that cannot withstand critical examination (e.g., soul, immortality, heaven, hell, angels, Satan, free will, God, etc.)
Enlightened Persons cannot have their emotional and intellectual sides divided. In fact the development of both reason and emotion go hand in hand. Persons cannot be fully functioning, mature adults if either their emotional or intellectual development is stifled.
Individuals may become Enlightened Persons only as they master the ideas and procedures offered by an ethical System that meets the requirements of Science of Ethics. Being able to accept a valid ethical System requires adequate education and experiences. Also, it requires a satisfactory level of integration of one's conscious and unconscious and freeing oneself of the effects of early psychic trauma. Achievement of the foregoing is part of the Sixth Way of Wisdom: Know and endeavor to improve yourself. [6]. A Wisdom Group must help one achieve the self-knowledge required by the Sixth Way.
Each person would thus be helped to become an Enlightened Person (motivated by wisdom and maturity) and therefore a responsible, trustworthy member of society. Otherwise there is the danger of getting something started that would be worse than the Holy Inquisition and NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR [6.b]combined.
Traditionally, when philosophers, writers on religion, and intellectuals in general have discussed ethical behavior or the ideal person -- here called an Enlightened Person -- terms such as selfishness vs. altruism, free will, good and bad persons, punishment, laws, the "soul," and particular ethical systems have been brought in. It seems worthwhile to briefly discuss the foregoing concepts here.
A Science of Ethics must either discard or define each of the foregoing concepts in a new way. Collectively they have been used to present an interpretation of an individual and of society that is grossly misfocused. These terms are flawed in various ways one of which is to make it seem that cause and effect does not apply to the issues being considered. As a result these concepts such as punishment, law, the "soul," good/bad persons, evil, free will, selfishness/ altruism have not been open to empirical testing. Their effectiveness is not open to objective questioning. They need not make sense, or be supported by evidence. Any thought or idea relating to these terms can be voiced and has equal standing to anyone else's opinion. Loud-mouthed bigots tend to get the headlines and, therefore, the votes. Truth and accuracy are irrelevant.
Looking first at selfishness and altruism we see that these terms generate a smoke screen that obscures thought. In a Science of Ethics selfishness and altruism turn out to be the same thing. In an Enlightened Community when one acts selfishly (to achieve their own best interest) at the same time they do what is best for everyone else (altruism). Best interest means long-term self-interest. What is good for oneself in the long term turns out to be the same thing as what is best for everyone else. That is a core assumption of a Science of Ethics, and is open to testing.
[p. 4]
When the clergy, politicians, and people in general talk about good persons and bad persons they normally are talking about a person who obeys society's rules and lives by the moral law of the particular society concerned. However, up until the development of a Science of Ethics the criteria for judging good and bad had little basis beyond cultural relativity. Somewhere in the package of rules were some that related to the key issue: What does it take to have a smoothly functioning society -- don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, etc. But when it got to the application of these rules it turned out that offenders were not treated in the same way. Some were executed or suffered other severe penalties, some had their wrists slapped. But in addition to the rules necessary to have a society pleasant to live in there were many other rules less obvious in their intent. These rules were designed to enforce the customs of the society. For these rules their justification was merely, "because our customs and authority say so."
In reality the way most of these rules played out they always favored those in power. The rules benefited the rich and exploited the poor. They put the force of law behind the beliefs of the folk religion dominant in the society. At one time in England it was a serious crime to publicly say God does not exist. And, even in 1998 a decree of death (fatwa) initiated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 14 February 1989, was still in force against Salman Rushdie for "insulting the Prophet Mohammed in his book THE SATANIC VERSES." It was renewed in February 1998 with the words: "Any Muslim who hears an insult to the prophet must kill the person who commits the insult." And the world has accepted this morally bankrupt decree with little more than an embarrassed moan.[7]
In spite of the fatwa against Rushdie Muslims as a group are as moral as the members of any other folk religion. However, they like all folk religions are ruled by inconsistent and, therefore, conflicting beliefs not based on a scientific foundation. Because they are now controlled by persons of limited vision they may be a little more conflicted than the members of most folk religions, but by and large all members of folk religions suffer from the same lack of congruency in their life and, therefore, conflicted citizens are produced. In all cases such persons perform practices which prevent not only themselves, but others from achieving a sustainable belief that their life has meaning. Therefore, the term "good person" which attempts to make a positive statement, makes a negative statement. Persons who are held up as worthy of being honored and emulated are in fact moving in the wrong direction. Most Westerners would probably see this about Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. However, there would be less recognition that this also applies to Mother Teresa. "Despite all the publicity she received and the massive sums she collected, the level of care provided by Mother Teresa for those in her charge was minimal. When asked by an Australian reporter why she did not spend more of her vast wealth on the relief of suffering, her reply was that her business was 'saving souls, not bodies.'"[7.b] In addition she supported a worldview that opposes birth control, and the development of each person to achieve their full positive potential.
These "good persons" do bad things because they are ruled by irrational customs and authority. They lack the guidance of a Science of Ethics and the support of an Enlightened Community. And, their beliefs prevent them from working for either.
Bad acts, bad people, laws of society, guilt, and punishment as defined by political bodies exist outside of the realm of cause and effect. Therefore, punishment (even capital punishment) is considered to be the perfect response to sufficiently bad behavior. Those who judge people "bad" do not need to prove the value, the psychological or moral justification, or effectiveness of punishment; they don't need to consider society's responsibilities. They only are required to prove guilt.
Was an individual warped in their physical and psychological development during their vulnerable childhood? Physical and/or sexual abuse, being terrorized with lies and fearful stories at the earliest ages, absence of nurturing physical affection are taken as acceptable hazards of growing up. If the child fails to come out of this as a good citizen we blame the victim and make them the guilty party.
"Bad," is not a valid adjective describing a person except in broadest terms (describing a habit of behavior) and then not to condemn the individual, but the behavior, and with the goal of helping the person recognize the mistakes in what they are doing. "Bad" must be replaced by more exact adjectives that describe behavior in ways that make more obvious the necessary and desirable changes that are needed.
[p. 5]
Once a society accepts the idea that there are "bad" people it is caught in the dilemma of explaining why. Are they "bad" because they chose to be, or because they were innately bad/evil. Therefore, the below ideas on "free will"/ determinism relate directly to "bad" people; i.e., individuals who do cruel, illegal, or thoughtless things. It is a core assumption of Science of Ethics that it is counterproductive to say that anyone is inherently evil or beyond human help. Persons may be confused, misled, ignorant, perhaps even physiologically malformed; but, they cannot just be inherently bad. This would make badness an effect without a cause. Science of Ethics does not accept belief in effects without causes. An Enlightened Community cannot ignore cause and effect, scientific evidence, study, analysis. If an individual does cruel, illegal, immoral, or stupid things a core assumption of Science of Ethics is that ignorance is to blame. Therefore, in a Science of Ethics laws and morality must be defined so as to depend on cause and effect and as a result be open to scientific study.
Free will was specifically developed to exist outside the realm of cause and effect. The spin given to determinism -- in spite of its being the essence of cause and effect -- as it relates to human choices, has effectively resulted in moving it outside the realm of cause and effect, also. Determinism has been interpreted to mean predestination, fatalism, that we can ignore the specifics of how people make choices because choice is an illusion.
Free will states that one's choices are not caused. They are "freely" made. Free choice (like quantum mechanics) exists outside the realm of cause and effect. As a result it can be said that if one commits a bad act, they deserve and require punishment. It is believed that they could have done the "right" thing, but they freely chose to do the "wrong" thing. These ideas are discussed in more detail in the Fifth Way of Wisdom[8] wherein the traditional assumptions about determinism[9] are also discussed.
Those who argue that punishment (including capital punishment) is a necessary social tool to achieve good behavior, realize that a person can many times be intimidated into refraining from certain acts or into performing certain acts; when they have not yet internalized the values of their society. However, what is usually overlooked is that such a person is a constant threat to themselves and society. They may at any time get into a situation that will push them over the line with the result that they perform self-destructive, antisocial acts. Therefore, this method is at best stopgap because one can never be sure how long or the limits under which it will be successful. Worse yet, this approach develops individuals unable to achieve their full positive potential.[10] However, all the foregoing is very easy for modern people to ignore because our society has already accepted as true that there is an inherent conflict between the individual and their society.
Societies that regard punishment as necessary because it reduces the number of bad acts and without it society would be destroyed, are ruled by a principle I call the "Doctrine of Fear." This doctrine comes out of our genetic heritage of dominance and submission -- punish those who do not obey the leader. It involves banishing, excommunicating, whipping, ridiculing, jailing, torturing, killing, etc. members who do not do what the society says they should do. Obedience and submission to the rules and to those who command is the aim. Many proclaim that without punishment a society would experience chaos, and a society that is not yet an Enlightened Community might. However, the Doctrine of Fear must be discarded as a necessary, or even desirable way to organize an Enlightened Community. An Enlightened Person cannot be ruled by fear, but must be inspired by love, understanding, honesty, and commitment based on acceptance of the goals and institutions of the society.
It may seem much easier to "put the fear of God" into individuals rather than helping them become Enlightened Persons. But this takes us directly to the core issue. What is a society for? In my framework its transcendent justification for existing is to work in every way it can for the well being of every one of its citizens in order to ensure the long term survival of our species. Authority, fear, and control should never be seen as necessary methods for helping individuals become their best self unless they have already been alienated from their society and therefore need special assistance to overcome that alienation.
[p. 6]
However, without a Science of Ethics and the necessary organizations based on it no society can recognize its responsibility let alone achieve it. Until the institutions supporting a Science of Ethics are established, the research done, and results experienced, many will continue to support rule through fear because that is the way they were taught to believe. Most leaders are functioning out of their alpha male propensity. Therefore, they are more interested in obedience than producing Enlightened Persons. But even if one ignores the importance of an individual life, it should be obvious that fear and punishment fail far too often to be endorsed as practical methods for organizing society. One has but to study the lives of those called "bad" to see where the Doctrine of Fear errs. [11] It rests on the assumption that punishment will change behavior in the desired way.
In truth, however, there is the possibility that for many persons, "Whether in its first or final stage, [crime] is essentially a self-destructive, probably masochistic need and is therefore more often satisfied than eliminated or even temporarily held in check by punishment. For that reason the use of punishment as a correctional device is self-defeating."[12] Equally important as Alice Miller[10] points out, physical punishment produces grave psychological scars that interfere with the healthy functioning of the individual. Such persons are convinced that they are somehow lacking as human beings and deserve every punishment and cruelty they can imagine. By their destructive behavior (either to self or others) these individuals show that they must have help to overcome their deep seated beliefs. A Center for the Practical Application of Wisdom would be one organization that would work to learn how to provide such help.
Everything about Law would be refocused in an Enlightened Community. In theory a good law states a principle or method of action that a good person would follow if no law existed. Therefore, when a person breaks a law they are a priori considered to be a bad person. But in an Enlightened Community there are no bad persons. There is only bad behavior. Bad behavior is a consequence of ignorance, not some innate essence called "badness." Because law is based on faulty theory it has been almost totally misapplied. It often leads to persecution of the innocent and rewarding the guilty. Laws in a society that is not yet Enlightened are almost universally used as tools by which the rich and powerful exploit the weak and powerless. Also laws act as excuses to perpetrate cruel and heartless behavior on whoever is vulnerable.
In a truly civilized society (an Enlightened Community) it is always to a person's advantage to do right because that is what right is. It is impossible for "bad" persons to truly advance themselves and achieve what they need. They commonly believe -- because society reinforces their "tribal" propensities for us vs. them and dominance/submission -- that wealth, power, prestige, etc. will bring what they seek. However, even the most cursory thought will make clear that illegal or anti-social behavior will not fill one's needs, except in a very short term, superficial way. Wealth, power, prestige, etc. are only means not ends. They may bring satisfaction because they can be used to do things that will give it; e.g., build nurturing bonds with loving friends. But in themselves they are as worthless as addictive, pleasure giving drugs.
Laws used to justify punishment are considered to be essential in primitive civilized societies (societies such as the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc.). Because these societies lack a science-based model for human behavior they have followed archaic ideas about the effectiveness of punishment. Therefore, their primary socially approved method of dealing with aberrant behavior is to punish those who will not or cannot follow the rules. In a truly civilized society (an Enlightened Community) laws would be guides for social behavior. Violators and transgressors would not be punished. Rather, helping hands would be available to aid them in making appropriate changes, and this includes changing bad laws (such as current drug laws). This process would ensure that each person would to the degree possible be helped to develop their full positive potential. For an expanded discussion of these issues, see VOLUME II, Chapter 22, "A Close Look at the Criminal Justice System [13]." Also, see discussion of the Santa Clara County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program and S.M.A.R.T. Recovery, VOLUME II, Chapter 23, "Human Centered Treatment Programs." [14].)
Through processes like the foregoing ones justice would be ensured and tyranny prevented in an Enlightened Community. These processes would provide techniques that are more trustworthy and humane while at the same time are less wasteful and destructive than prisons/ jails are, and punishment in general. These processes would make it possible to protect all the members of the community by a better method than punishment. The foregoing will be true because procedures will exist to help each person move toward becoming an Enlightened Person.
.
.
.