A Civilised Mind?

Being understood and able to understand others is quite a basic part of a social species. As we each discover different thoughts and philosophies, understanding one another can become more convoluted. We depend on the ability to get on with each other, and equally we require our own personal autonomy. It is this challenge of permitting individual morals and beliefs whilst perpetuating the cohesion that has brought us success that takes up much of the social debate.

For some time, parents, teachers and decision-makers in general have tried to balance this ever-changing equation. Efforts have been made in philosophy, religion and politics to establish a united and autonomous society. To some degree we have been successful. Since the origin of civilisation we have developed greater infrastructure, more comprehensive human rights and the technology to provide further opportunity to civilisation. The battle rages on though. Still we struggle to get on with each other. Still we struggle with the ideals of personal autonomy, social cohesion and the blends of the two. Some argue for less tax for shared spending and more money for personal choice. Some argue for a less defined school curriculum leading to less shared knowledge and more individual expression. Equally there are the converse arguments of less choice and more enforced contribution to our shared realm. These concepts of freedom versus responsibility, order versus originality, imposition versus independence, seem to grate on our consciousness, and affect our ability to get on with one another. Social order is often seen as a necessary restriction to personal autonomy; conflict a bi-product of such restriction.

But what if cohesion and autonomy are not mutually exclusive? What if independent thought leads naturally to greater social collaboration?

It sounds more straightforward than it probably is. One cannot simply reject Big Brother's influence or the influence of society. Influence, stimulation, the exposure to morals, ideals and theory is probably needed if we are to learn and develop. Asking the state, media, religious and other organisations to leave us be, to let us discover our own view of life, is probably not a fully considered opinion. The great work our ancestors began needs to be carried forward; our adaptability requires the ability to learn and therefore be influenced. The problem, it seems, is with the degree of influence and to what end. To what extent do we through interaction attempt to condition another, and to what degree is conditioning useful for society?

Perhaps, optimistically, one can attribute the attempt to convert or convince another that one's morals are superior to the mere drive to promote human rights. Such attempts by religious groups, the media and many other walks of life to subvert may merely be the intention of improvement sub-consciously mixed with the competitive edge. Regardless of reason, resistance to the pushy absolutist seems warranted. Caution towards the religious doctrine or political ideology is probably sensible. Fixed beliefs and ideals require the assimilation of them in order for correctness to be maintained. This assignment of sense to the lesser creation of writing or fixed ideology seems ignorant to the situation we find ourselves in. How can one be expected to resign one's autonomy to a consequence of such autonomy? Our ability to think has led to the ability to write, so how then can writing capture what it is to think for oneself? This is not to say that writing fails to stimulate one's expression or provide a platform from which to experience. It is though, to say, it seems highly improbable that fixed beliefs or ideologies lead to independent thought or a civilised mind.
So what then has led and does lead to independent thought and a civilised mind? And, what is a civilised mind?

I represent the view that sentiency (the ability to think for oneself) and a civilised mind (the awareness of our diverse co-operative) are inexplicitly linked and, taking it further, there is a baseline for a civilised mind. But, whilst I present these words as a representation of the sentient baseline, the over-riding conclusion throughout all my studies suggest such a baseline is not really an ability to comprehend a written idea, and perhaps not even the ability to understand academic thought. Instead, I propose, it is the act of co-operation that leads to the sentiency of civilised beings.

In words it may seem like a pretty straightforward consideration: acting in a co-operative manner is civilised. In practice it rarely is. For, whilst the need for co-operation is quite obviously paramount to civilisation, when one takes this logical thought through to its logical conclusion, the challenge of applying co-operation to more than those one morally agrees with reveals the complexities within.

How can one expect co-operation given the extensive range of morals, values and beliefs? Does co-operation as a starting point not necessitate compromise, tolerance and a degree of submission? How then can co-operation lead to personal freedom?

The logic presented here is that the space to think, and therefore act consciously, stems from the success of civilisation. Without our ancestors behaving in a mutually co-operative way the space above survival would be minimal. Instead of having the time to contemplate or interact on different social levels we would spend more time searching for food, defending ourselves and other such necessities to life. Being part of civilisation insured, so far as possible, the basic elements of survival. Therefore, presently, if one appreciates the space to think and one considers it prudent to maintain and progress this freedom civilisation has granted us, then one's point of intervention, one's moral intervention, centers around fulfilling the premise of civilisation. Essentially, awareness leads to trying to insure the security of basic provision to civilisation.

If it is logical that awareness of one's autonomy leads to the intention of preserving the reason for it, then higher morals, values and beliefs are a lesser consideration. Behaving in a civilised way does not require the assimilation of certain behaviours or the intricacies often associated with 'high society'. Indeed, the baseline for civilised behaviour is probably much more simple and beneath most of the intellectualisations of modern man.

Our ancestors, the founders of civilisation, had the necessary sense of co-operation. It was the first step in forming an ordered and 'civil' society. Sure, in certain areas the baseline of civilisation has progressed. Within the order created women are gaining the rights of men, black the rights of white, and many other logical advancements. The problem, and one of the main reasons for writing this book, is that we often miss the basic component to being civilised. Yes there are great advancements of thought, philosophy, science and human rights, there is much to debate and discern; missing though, is the co-operative sense - the common sense of providing the baseline securities to all in civilisation. It does not matter if one wants to call such provision basic intelligence and logical, or humane. The reality remains, the indication of intelligent, civilised thought, and that is to say independent thinking, is the prioritisation of basic provision to all. It may be intelligent to debate and decide on the best way of achieving such a baseline, but first we must acknowledge it and insure the influence we partake in and the influence we are subjected to stem from the founding principles of civilisation.

Being aware of the co-operative sense does not necessarily lead one to the attempt to first co-operate with one another, merely one looks to relate with the perpetuation of civilisation in mind - a more global consideration. And, as there are parts of civilisation absent of such basics, there is little dilemma or debate regarding the most 'civilised' discussions for modern times.

There are many reasons to get stuck in the right versus left, science versus religion, nature versus nurture, discussions, but they are likely to be of minimal importance. Indeed, the investment of time and thought into these higher conditions is more likely a sign of an unconsidered, 'uncivilised' mind. Perhaps when the simple has been overcome, dwelling on such issues may well be civilised, but at present, I propose, it is not.

Again it may sound like a hopeful or over-simplified view. After-all, am I not merely suggesting that those who do not care about poverty, hunger and basic provision are uncivilised? Perhaps. Perhaps though, there is more. Perhaps there is logic and sense beneath such a sentiment. The logic may well be so simple as to appear as a statement of fact, but might there be the type of logic that is rigorous and supportive? Might there be a logic important to those of us aiming to base our interactions on accurate truths and greater awareness?

Certainly this is my proposition. I am suggesting that being aware of our origins helps identify the basis for the ability to think and make decisions about our future. That is, awareness of the sense of co-operation underpins our development, and if one wants to understand one's own thought process and others, then it is sensible to account for such sense. I am going as far as to say, if one is unaware of this essential nature of being, then one is likely to have based one's interaction with environment on a skewed perception of reality. So integral is co-operation to modern life that to be unaware of it is to be unaware of one's environment and hence unaware. If as people we fail to appreciate the extent of civilisation's basic needs, if we fail to contribute to the civilised agreement, not only do we fail society, we fail also in our attempt to actualise, be present, think for ourselves. If we are ignorant, or ignore this basic building block of our own freedom to think, then what other parts of life are we ignorant to, what else are we not seeing?

Promoting individuals' self-determination is integral to civilisation so that they are able to contribute to society. The converse to this is to make each person subservient and therefore dependent on others. For the power hungry, such submission to their fixed agendas may seem to them, with their limited awareness, as ideal, and hence the balancing act for such individuals revolves around keeping others passive enough to be lead, but thinking enough to be productive. Of course logic does not agree with such narrow-mindedness. Others though, based on an, in my opinion, incomplete logic, suggest some people in society need to be told what to do; a kind of, some lead and some follow principle. The argument here disputes the logic of both controllers and regulators. Here, it is proposed, an aware individual is naturally aligned with the basic building block for civilisation i.e. co-operation. Helping someone become independent in their thoughts and opinions does not lead to rebellion or the differentiation of individuals beyond social cohesion.

[Available on lulu]

Thanks
doc