[MD] Barbarians & Hippies

[Ant McWatt]

Ant McWatt stated March 5th 2006:

>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.”

Platt asked March 6th:

Hippies are anti-government? How come most avowed hippies like you are
socialists at heart?

Ant McWatt notes:

Platt,

Socialism is a very broad church.  If you are referring to the socialism of 
Robert Tressell (“The thinking cyclist”) then there might be an element of 
truth in your assertion.  However, that is a moot point because you haven’t 
read his celebrated novel “The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”.  If you 
are referring to the ideology of the pre-1990 soviet communist countries 
then you’d be well off base.  Moreover, on this discussion group, I’ve only 
ever said that my political viewpoint was one on the lines of the MOQ (i.e. 
a combination of the best of traditional systems such as socialism, 
capitalism etc).  Out of the traditional political factions my guess is that 
anarchy (in the sense of minimal government interference and maximum 
individual freedom) would be the closest to the MOQ.

>“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.”

Platt stated March 6th:

No doubt hippies want to change the world, but what I'm trying to find
out is specifically what hippies have in mind. The answers that have
been given so far are amorphous sentiments like peace, freedom and
openness.

Ant McWatt comments:

What do hippies have in mind?  I think hippies plan to turn the whole world 
into a garden of Eden where Brian Wilson will become a God and good 
vibrations in the form of free love, music festivals, psychedelics, 
permaculture and a dedicated philosophical life will be the norm for all.  
Hemp (and its products) will become the primary driving force for technology 
(especially useful because once an artefact becomes out-of-date, it can be 
broken-up into small pieces and then smoked.  Now that’s what I call a high 
quality recycling scheme).

Seriously, if you’re talking about MOQ hippies, read ZMM and LILA.  If 
you’re talking about SOM hippies, may I recommend Skip Stone’s website 
hippy.com or his book “Hippies From A to Z”.

>“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.”

Platt asked March 6th:

Ok, add to that amorphous soup "peace, love and tolerance." Peace at
what price? Are hippies willing to give up their freedom for peace?

Ant McWatt comments:

I think if you travelled to the Middle East you would realise that people 
around the world are very much the same and, if given the chance, just want 
a fulfilling life where they can bring-up their children in a high quality 
peaceful environment.  98% of people I met there in 2002 were pretty much 
down-to-earth and non-extreme; it was just the same with the people I met in 
New York or that I meet in Liverpool.  A label such as “Muslim” or 
“capitalist” or “socialist” seems extremely unimportant in a one-to-one 
environment.

I think if all reasonably minded people (who are by far the majority), 
realise their commonalities, work together to defeat the extremists (of 
whatever origin) then things will work out fine.  It’s all about organising 
in large pressure groups globally whether that’s via trade unions or 
organisations such as Greenpeace or CND.  And maybe even some Church 
organizations if that rings your bell.

>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)

Platt commented March 6th:

Add to the amorphous soup, "go with the flow."

Ant McWatt comments:

I think Skip Stone’s terminology would be improved if he read LILA as he’s 
no doubt  talking about the MOQ’s code of Art in the above.  Actually, 
there’s a whole text written on this subject by Professor of psychology, 
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, oddly enough titled “Flow”:

“If a tennis player is asked how it feels when a game is going well, she 
will describe a state of mind that is very similar to the description a 
chess player will give of a good tournament.  So will be a description of 
how it feels to be absorbed in painting, or playing a difficult piece of 
music.  Watching a good play or reading a stimulating book also seems to 
produce the same mental state.  I called it ‘flow,’ because this was a 
metaphor several respondents gave for how it felt when their experience was 
most enjoyable - it was like being carried away by a current, everything 
moving smoothly without effort…  We feel involved, concentrated, absorbed.  
We know what must be done, and we get immediate feedback as to how well we 
are doing.  The tennis player knows after each shot whether the ball 
actually went where she wanted it to go; the pianist knows after each stroke 
of the keyboard whether the notes sound like they should… We forget 
ourselves and become lost in the activity.”

“We feel a sense of transcendence, as if the boundaries of the self had been 
expanded.  The sailor feels at one with the wind, the boat, and the sea; the 
singer feels a mysterious sense of universal harmony.  In those moments the 
awareness of time disappears, and hours seem to flash by without our 
noticing… Contrary to expectation, ‘flow’ usually happens not during 
relaxing moments of leisure and entertainment, but rather when we are 
actively involved in a difficult enterprise, in a task that stretches our 
mental and physical abilities. Any activity can do it. Working on a 
challenging job, riding the crest of a tremendous wave, and teaching one’s 
child the letters of the alphabet are the kinds of [Dynamic] experiences 
that focus our whole being in a harmonious rush of energy, and lift us out 
of the [static] anxieties and boredom that characterize so much of everyday 
life.  (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, Chapter 1)

>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):

Social patterns include government. What is the hippie attitude towards
government power?  So far, all I've seen from the avowed hippies here is
praise of socialism.

Ant McWatt comments:

If you’re talking about MOQ hippies, that was answered by my comment about 
anarchy above and in my previous post i.e. it’s about the intellectual level 
looking after social patterns when the latter are being challenged by 
biological patterns while making sure they are not dominated by social 
patterns themselves i.e. as found in Chapter 24 of LILA:

“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.”

>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:

Platt stated March 5th:

So far the hippie philosophy is "peace, love, openness, freedom,
tolerance and go with the flow."  A more amorphous soup of sentiments
would be hard to find. Surprised you haven't included "Turn on, tune
in, drop out."

Ant McWatt comments:

Well, Leary’s sentiments are probably a good start for any young person 
especially when translated into MOQ-speak i.e. “Turn on (to Dynamic 
Quality), tune in (to the ideas espoused in the MOQ such as freedom), drop 
out (of traditional static patterns such as SOM).

>“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)

-snip- (an irrelevant comment and quote about the Victorian-Bush-Bin Laden 
type of cultures.)

>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.

Platt misleadingly stated March 5th:

Nowhere in Chap. 24 or anywhere else does Pirsig spell out the hippie
philosophy other than to say it was a moral movement gone bad.

Ant McWatt comments:

Looks like a severe case of “Pox-news” is still affecting the patient!  No 
wonder I put the relevant part of the above quote in CAPITALS:

“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.”

Nothing better in this context means the dominating culture of the 1980s and 
after.  As the late subversive comedian Bill Hicks lamented in the early 
1990s: “What's happened to us? After eight years of Ronald Reagan and 
yuppies, we live on like the third mall from the Sun now.”  (BTW, the audio 
clip that this quote is taken from can be heard at length over Dave 
Buchanan’s excellent paper “Fun with Blasphemy” at robertpirsig.org)

Moreover, in Chapter 29 of LILA, Pirsig also mentions hippies positively in 
the context of contrarians who are concerned with Dynamic development.

“That brujo in Zuñi was a contrarian.  The Cheyenne had a whole society of 
contrarians to assimilate the phenomenon within their social fabric.  
Cheyenne contrarians rode their horses sitting backward, entered teepees 
backward, and had a whole repertoire of things they performed in a contrary 
way.  Members seemed to enter the contrary society when they felt a great 
wrong, a great injustice, had been done to them and apparently it was felt 
that this was a way of resolving the injustice.  Once you see it in another 
culture like that and then come back to our own you can see that in an 
unofficial way we have our contrarian societies too.  The "Bohemians" of the 
Victorian era were contrarians.  So, to some extent, were the Hippies of the 
sixties.”  [Note the phrase there: “Hippies of the sixties” or am I 
hallucinating it?]

“Anyway it seemed to him that when you add a concept of ‘Dynamic Quality’ to
a rational understanding of the world, you can add a lot to an understanding 
of contrarians [such as the “Hippies of the sixties”].  Some of them aren't 
just being negative toward static moral patterns, they are actively pursuing 
a Dynamic goal… where your whole being senses that the static situation is 
an enemy of life itself.  That's what drives the really creative people - 
the artists, composers, revolutionaries and the like [such as the “Hippies 
of the sixties”] – the feeling that if they don't break out of this 
jailhouse somebody has built around them, they're going to die.”

“But they're not being contrary in a way that is just decadent.  They're way 
too energetic and aggressive to be decadent.  They're fighting for some kind 
of Dynamic freedom from the static patterns.  But the Dynamic freedom 
they're fighting for is a kind of morality too.  And it's a highly important 
part of the overall moral process.  It's often confused with degeneracy but 
it's actually a form of moral regeneration. Without its continual 
refreshment static patterns would simply die of old age.”

It therefore strikes me that there is more to the hippies (as understood by 
Pirsig) than just “a moral movement gone bad” as you falsely claimed he was 
saying.  In fact, I seem to remember Pirsig saying that this “fighting for 
some kind of Dynamic freedom from the static patterns” is the highest 
morality there is.

Moreover, I think Pirsig tries to be very fair in dealing with cultures 
whether its Victorians, Native American Indians or Hippies (neither too 
sentimental or too dismissive) so your distorted reading of his work is an 
increasingly serious matter of concern. As Arlo explained yesterday:

“It’s the idiot reliance on ALL or NOTHING, the blind reliance on external 
patterns of party ideology to define ‘what is right’ and ‘what is good’ that 
leads to many of the problems we see today. I have yet to hear one thing 
from you since I've belonged to this forum that deviates from Limbaugh's 
words or the words of the right-wing apologists. You can try and try and try 
to deny this, but it is quite evident.”

I think it’s quite evident as well.  If not, where exactly do you disagree 
with Rush Limbaugh and why?

>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).

The way forward according the Pirsig is not to adopt another amorphous soup 
of hippie sentiments but to recognize morality as being the foundation of 
reality.

Ant McWatt comments:

I think you’ve still got your ideological blinkers on.   Pirsig’s morality 
is one where Freedom is the highest value which is just what traditional 
hippies such as Skip Stone are saying.  As the latter stated above:

“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.”

Freedom is discussed in some detail in LILA.  Furthermore, Pirsig has noted 
to me that Love – in the sense of everything that exists - is a synonym of 
Quality.  (That the MOQ can be considered as a “Metaphysics of Love” 
shouldn’t be too much of a surprise considering that an original 1950s hippy 
wrote it).   If you want to consider “love” in the narrower sense (as work 
in developing other people’s intellectual abilities and sense of Dynamic 
Quality), this is covered in some detail in M. Scott-Peck’s “The Road Less 
Travelled”.  Peace, if defined as harmony between people or groups, is high 
quality social interaction.

Best wishes,

Anthony


(To see the cover of the new edition of LILA - out this September - visit 
robertpirsig.org)


.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! 
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/