Intellectual Tension

One important skill that truth seekers and disciplined thinkers should hone is the ability to recognize tension between the ideas they promote.  Far too often, when we get the hint of some logical inconsistency between the ideas we ally ourselves to, we willfully ignore the contradictions and move on, often times stubbornly rooting our identities in our ideas even deeper.  Whether they be religious, secular, political, ethnic, nationalistic, or social ideas; most of us are guilty of stubbornly clinging to them despite their flaws. But the tensions contained therein won't be resolved until they are brought into the light of logical scrutiny.  

To ensure that I don't bind myself to unworthy ideas, I intend to shine a spot light on the tension I've detected in some of my pet notions.  

Nonconformity is one of my favorite notions.  I glorify free and willfully individualistic behavior.  I'm easily disgusted by unthinking acts of tradition and other social ritual.  

At the same time, I am a proponent of an "ism"-secular humanism.  Implicit in any "ism" is the assertion that someone or something ought to act a certain way.  Now, it may be one thing to say that individuals ought to be peace loving, progressive, empathetic, and open minded; and another thing to say that governments ought to enshrine these secular humanist traits in their constitution, laws, and policies.  Given the distinction, there still exists in either case an expectation of "rightness".

I desire that all people believe and behave in ways that abide by certain rules.  In other words, I promote the suppression of willfully individualistic behavior.  I claim to love nonconformity, yet a whole host of certain behaviors I deem unlawful, morally wrong, rude, untactful, stupid, embarrassing, or ugly.  My words and actions undermine the words and actions of those I disagree with.

So which do I choose-nonconformity OR manners?  Freedom OR law?  Individualism OR everybody treating each other the way they want to be treated (being nice)?  

These are false choices, of course.  Just because I don't think we should do things simply because other people do them (conformity), doesn't mean I can't do things that other people do.  I'm not required to always act differently from others just because I'm against mindlessly doing what others do.  I might just happen to be doing the same thing (there are only so many things to do, after all), and I might decide for myself that a certain behavior is the best given the circumstances and consequences.  In my mind, its OK to join the crowd if you are not feeling externally compelled to do so, or if you've put some good thought into your behavior and deemed it the best course of action.  

The topic of freewill is terribly troublesome.  When I say that its OK to join the crowd only if you want to, I see dozens of red flags being thrown.  I have no doubt that if I were to yank an individual out of an angry mob and ask him if he wanted to be there, he'd say something like "Hell yes!  I want to tar and feather that sunavabitch!"  We may be individuals, but we're never 100% insular from the people around us.  Intellectually and emotionally, we are socially entwined.  Only one enthusiastic friend may influence our emotions-we may choose to go to a concert we may not have chosen to attend on our own.  Positive emotions-entusiasm, love, enjoyment, excitement-are powerful outside forces affecting individual choice. 

Do these emotions qualify as compulsion?  I admit that my distaste for conformity also applies to positive individual actions that arise from positive group forces.  But I can't possibly think that life is best lived free of all the positive social influences on our own will and behavior (no, I don't).  And I can't possibly think that getting caught up in the excitement of a crowd at a football game (for example) is somehow bad and threatens individual autonomy (nah).  So, what am I saying??

I want everyone to be strong individuals who do not completely dismiss their needs and desires for the sake of the group (but I want them to be considerate of others and work towards the overall "good" of the group).  I would prefer that people looked out for their own interests without demanding too much from others (but I'd like to think people would find love and assistance from others).  I want people to be smart enough to think for themselves and not be slave to the dictates of others (but open minded enough to accept their experience and wisdom).  

I can imagine how this personal bent towards social independence might have arisen from an ancestral history that demanded self reliance.  A coworker of mine told me about a recent study that seemed to confirm that people who reacted more aggressively in defense of their personal space possessed DNA shared with old nomadic, shepherding groups.  Perhaps people who are not as protective of their personal space (or as in love with their freedom as I) have ancestors who lived in large tribes/towns that survived best with central control and social cooperation (or slavery).  

If there is a genetic basis for my negative feelings about conformity, my position is less grounded in logic than it ought to be.  And that's a problem-another major tension underlying our condition.  

Is logic just a tool to justify our gut preferences?  I do believe that logic itself is not The Ultimate Goal.  Neither is truth.  Logic is a tool to uncover Truth, and the Truth is a tool used to secure health, happiness, pleasure, satisfaction, and contentment.  

I apologize for all the tangents.  I'll refocus my attention on the tension between my love for nonconformity and my acceptance of a general "way" of behaving.  This "way" is, as I've indicated, behavior that abides by sensible laws and social expectations, most importantly the expectation to treat other people with kindness and respect.  My recent increased awareness of this contradictory thinking has produced some tangible results.  A few days ago I helped a customer find a pair of cycling shoes.  I interacted with him in my usual friendly way, but he returned absolutely nothing positive in return.  He was expressionless to the point of seeming extremely rude.  But I didn't allow myself to get upset.  I told myself that diversity and unique behavior was something I've always upheld as a positive thing.  The customer was different, and he didn't behave as I thought a person should, but there was nothing wrong with it at all, I reminded myself.  Furthermore, I shouldn't allow the harmless behavior of an individual acting freely to affect my emotional state.  

In this instance, I loosed my rigid sense of right behavior.  But how far can acceptance and tolerance go?  This question is commonly heard coming from conservatives who bemoan the degradation of morality.  Without a clear definition of right and wrong, and given the complexity of life in general, we can all understand how the question would be difficult to answer.  How far can we take acceptance and tolerance, and when do we say "enough is enough-this is wrong"?  

If you're a liberal like myself, the answer is pretty simple:  If it can be demonstrated that a behavior causes real harm to others, society has a right to condemn-in some way or another-that behavior.  If you're a true believer in your religion, the answer is also straight forward:  Everything your gods and your popes and your prophets don't like, you don't do.  

For those of us who don't look to outside figures to define our morality, the entire spectrum of human behavior that falls outside the obvious "harmful to others" qualification is up for personal consideration and judgement.  This means that we can join the crowd or not, based on our personal preferences.  We are free to live the lives we create for ourselves.  We just need to remind ourselves that others are free to do the same, and that is a good thing.  

For a futre post:  Exploring the tension between the good of controlling natural urges, and the good of giving in to natural urges.