[MD] Barbarians & Hippies

[Ant McWatt]

Platt Holden stated to Dave Buchanan, March 5th 2006:

>Platt asked Arlo:
>I mean, could you give us some idea of what we might expect from turning
>the clock back to the 60’s to abstract what was right?

DMB answered:

>They (hippies) were serious about peace, rights and freedom. They wanted 
>the culture to be more beautiful and less cruel in all sorts of ways. 
>(parens added)

I had to laugh at the similarity between DMB’s answer and Pirsig’s 
description of 60’s intellectuals:

“What passed for morality within this crowd was a kind of vague, amorphous 
soup of sentiments known as “human rights.” You were also supposed to be 
“reasonable.” What these terms really meant was never spelled out in any way 
that Phaedrus had ever heard. You were just supposed to cheer for them.” 
(Lila, 24)

I have yet to hear an answer to my question from Arlo, DMB or anybody else 
other than a “vague amorphous soup of sentiments” that we’re supposed to 
cheer for.


Ant McWatt comments:

Platt,

You have heard an answer to your question (on February 1st) of what the 
“vague amorphous soup of sentiments” being cheered for in the Sixties were - 
at least regarding Hippies.   Unfortunately, you appear to have been 
suffering from a bad case of “Pox-news” again (where the patient forgets 
things and turns a nauseating shade of blue).  However, luckily for you, the 
MOQ doctor is here at hand to treat your symptoms...

Firstly, to remind you, in his text “Hippies From A to Z”, Skip Stone, the 
Webmaster and Editor of Hippy.com, states that being a hippy is primarily 
concerned with the MOQ emphasis on freedom and an openness to new 
experiences:

“My view is that being a hippie is a matter of accepting a universal belief 
system that transcends the social, political, and moral norms of any 
established structure, be it a class, church, or government.  Each of these 
powerful institutions has its own agenda for controlling, even enslaving 
people. Each has to defend itself when threatened by real or imagined 
enemies. So we see though history a parade of endless conflicts with country 
vs. country, religion vs. religion, class vs. class. After millennia of war 
and strife, in which uncounted millions have suffered, we have yet to rise 
above our petty differences.”

“The way of the hippie is antithetical to all repressive hierarchical power 
structures since these are adverse to the hippie goals of peace, love and 
freedom. This is why the ‘Establishment’ feared and suppressed the hippie 
movement of the ‘60s, as it was a revolution against the established order. 
It is also the reason why the hippies were unable to unite and overthrow the 
system since they refused to build their own power base. Hippies don’t 
impose their beliefs on others. Instead, hippies seek to change the world 
through reason and by living what they believe.”

“To be a hippie you must believe in peace as the way to resolve differences 
among peoples, ideologies and religions. The way to peace is through love 
and tolerance. Loving means accepting others as they are, giving them 
freedom to express themselves and not judging them based on appearances. 
This is the core of the hippie philosophy.”

Above all, note the following:

“The hippy movement erected signposts for all to see. Some warn us of 
impending danger, others direct us towards richer, more fulfilling lives, 
but most show us the road to freedom. Freedom is the paramount virtue in 
this system. Freedom to do as one pleases, go where the flow takes you, and 
to be open to new experiences. This engenders an attitude that allows for 
maximum personal growth.”

(http://hippy.com/hippyway.htm)

What the MOQ (which, btw, was written by an 1950s hippie, turned 1960s 
intellectual) adds to traditional (SOM) hippy philosophy (concerning freedom 
and an openness to new experiences) is a recognition that if the social 
patterns aren’t given due recognition and looked after to some extent, the 
intellectual (as with a woodman cutting the wrong side of a tree branch he’s 
sitting on) will find the underlying support required for his intellectual 
patterns disappearing.  And, in fact, that’s probably the central point of 
Chapter 24 (rather than just being an anti-intellectual or anti-hippy tirade 
as you falsely portray it):

“The Metaphysics of Quality suggests… it is immoral for intellect to be 
dominated by society for the same reasons it is immoral for children to be 
dominated by their parents.  But that doesn’t mean that children should 
assassinate their parents, and it doesn’t mean intellectuals should 
assassinate society.  Intellect can support static patterns of society 
without fear of domination by carefully distinguishing those moral issues 
that are social-biological from those that are intellectual-social and 
making sure there is no encroachment either way.”

In addition, though “seeking to change the world through reason and by 
living what they believe” (as Skip Stone stated above) is fine for the 
intellectual level and Dynamic development in themselves, is has to also be 
remembered that the means of communication between intellect and biological 
patterns is not directly through discussion but indirectly via social 
patterns e.g. “prisons and guns and police and the military” (LILA, Chapter 
24).  (That’s the error, Pirsig’s professor neighbour made when trying to 
deal with his neighborhood criminals.  “Gee, I politely told my local 
gangster it’s immoral to sell crack cocaine on the corner but he just spat 
on my dog and then – using some very impolite words - told me to leave the 
area …’).

However, just in case, anyone is under the illusion that the MOQ supports 
the type of Victorian ideology held by right-wing politicians and yourself, 
note that Pirsig is also at pains to emphasise that “nothing better” has 
generally replaced the Hippy philosophy of the 1960s in the subsequent 
decades since then:

“Today, it seemed to Phædrus, the overall picture is one of moral movements
gone bankrupt.  Just as the intellectual revolution undermined social 
patterns, the Hippies undermined both static and intellectual patterns. 
NOTHING BETTER HAS BEEN INTRODUCED TO REPLACE THEM.  The result has been a 
drop in both social and intellectual quality…  A WHOLE SOCIETY THAT HAS 
GIVEN UP ON DYNAMIC IMPROVEMENT AND IS SLOWLY TRYING TO SLIP BACK TO 
VICTORIANISM, THE LAST STATIC RATCHET-LATCH." (MY CAPITALS)

To sum up then: Chapter 24 of LILA informs us that the MOQ builds on the 
intellectual revolution of the 20th century and the hippy philosophy of the 
1960s but also sees where they went wrong (namely their SOM assumptions) and 
how society has been adversely affected by these assumptions.   So, by 
offering a Dynamic way forward (rather than backwards towards Victorianism), 
the MOQ offers society genuine hope (as Kevin might be interested in 
hearing).

However, beware the sound of a cracking branch!

Best wishes,

Anthony.


“If the hippy movement failed because they were confused about the 
difference between biological quality and Dynamic Quality, between pleasure 
and spirit, and the MOQ clears up that confusion, then a MOQish hippy is 
what we need, right? That's what I tried to do in FUN WITH BLASPHEMY. I 
mean, if Platt or anyone else is actually interested in some kind of answer 
to Platt's question...”

Dave Buchanan, March 5th 2006


(Just in case anyone doesn’t know, Dave’s impressive FUN WITH BLASPHEMY 
paper can be found at: www.robertpirsig.org.)


.

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 
7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk