Across the consciousness spectrum, humanity generally agrees that "we is".... but as to what "we ought", well, not so much! Indeed in today's entitlement culture the "ought spectrum" seems to have as many unique points as the human sample. We are now no longer catholic, nor polarized, nor really even tribal. We are approaching maximum divergence as to what "oughts" should mandate/constrain virtually every imaginable human initiative. The resulting complexity has produced a kind of "destiny gridlock". This gridlock is significantly slowing the evolutionary progress of what we commonly believe is the highest intelligence in the universe.
So is there a trick to achieving enough coherence to move the "enlightenment index" forward without undermining the consciousness freedom from which genuine enlightenment must arise? Likely no! Yes, there are, as always, proponents of the two perennially contending schools, i.e. God and Reason. It is generally accepted that, during the most recent few hundred years, the Reason protocol has gained favor as the more likely cohering strategy, but just look at the "is"....it "is" less coherence than ever before. Harris, Dawkins, Pinker, et al are convinced that the "sacred" arose within the "ancient is" and is long overdue for an overhaul. They argue further that "ought systems" naturally arise in the "is" without a progenitor, such that religion is either superfluous, or at least redundant Shapiro, Peterson and to a less palatable degree a thousand Theologians maintain that there "would have been no "ought in the "is" except for "divine revelation" This conviction is followed almost to the absurd conclusion that had Zeus, Yahweh, Krishna and Jesus not actualized, these same Theologians would have, no doubt, lived there lives as rapists and ax murderers. Oh well, I guess we are lucky they arent our political leaders......ohmygod!