Holistic kinda guy that I am, I’m always looking for levels on which all the different realms in which I have concerns - the geostrategic, the economic, the cultural, the social - manifest in their own ways some common undercurrent. I’m always beset by this sense that there’s something that ties these different types of issues together.
It occurs to me - and I didn’t read this anywhere - that our challenges stem from a trivialization of the spirit.
A few posts back, I considered that, as a boomer whose lifestyle has been fairly bohemian since I came of age, maybe me and my ilk had been taken for a ride by the way-pointers of the counterculture. I think certainly in this area of trivializing of spirit, a lot of blame must be laid at the feet of some big beatnik and hippie icons.
Think about Square Zen, Beat Zen by Alan Watts. It’s a book-length attempt to find some justification for the loose adaptation by moderns who like to party of venerable teachings about enlightenment that go back centuries. The Dharma Bums by Kerouac fleshes this out in fiction, with the main characters alternately hiking in the Sierras to find meditative serenity by the side of the stream, and coming back into the city to guzzle cheap wine and play yabyum (an “esoteric” group-sex exercise) with their groupie.
Then there is The Politics of Ecstacy by Timothy Leary, in which he mixes up the all-is-one view of reality with an endorsement of countercultural revolution. At one point, he recounts watching his son burn a large sum of money with a who’s-to-say-he-wasn’t-acting-out-of-some-cosmic-wisdom tone.
Leary’s buddy, Richard Alpert, in his incarnation as Ram Dass, wrote what may be the essential work in the canon of profound-transformation-as-a-result-of-psychedelic-experience, Be Here Now. The first third is autobiography, covering his high-powered Boston Jewish Republican dad, his own climb up the academic ladder, his social life, the fashionable dinner parties, the introduction to the mystical substances, getting fired from Harvard, his trips to India, and his relationship with his guru. The second part is a freewheeling manifesto of a new frontier, in which all notions of tradition and rationality are blown wide open. In the third section, he recommends meditation techniques, dietary and sleep practices and “books to hang out with.”
A profound journey, many of us thought. Yet I remember going to see him speak in the mid-1980s, when he plainly said, “This stuff doesn’t always work. Just recently I found myself lying in a bathtub, tears streaming down my face in a jealous rage. So I’m as susceptible to human foible as anybody, believe me.” Indeed.
It wasn’t too long after that that I saw him on the cover of some new-age magazine touting his article on “The Zen of Golf.”
Whatever.
I’ve written elsewhere about how the whole all-is-one impulse in the counterculture’s spiritualty morphed into New-Ageism. (Probably my most comprehensive treatment of the subject is an essay called “Woo-Woo,” which I may include in my next book, a collection of essays I’m slowly compiling.)
Then there’s the way all-is-one-ism was tailored to the boomer generation’s growing appetite for status and toys. The pioneer in the it’s-your-spiritual-birthright-to-have-it-all area was Werner Erhardt, with his est and Forum programs. Other such “transformational workshops” followed, and a host of “channeled entities” sprang up to deliver the message to hotel ballrooms packed with devotees, credit cards in hand.
The spiritual level of our existence ought to command more rigor and a greater sense of responsibility than any other, given that it’s the foundation of all the other levels. The relationship between time and eternity, that between our souls and their Creator - these aren’t small matters. Tarting them up with golf and rock music and career-booster pep talks and navel-gazing renders them worthless, and then we’re sunk.
We get to where we can’t see what matters about one economic system over another, or the importance of being a truly good spouse or friend, or what real valor is. We drift into a conclusion that nothing is worth defending or preserving. Once we go in for cotton candy on the most basic ontological level, our whole basis for valuing anything is obliterated.
How far are we from that now?