For a brief span of time during the 20th century, we collectively opened our eyes and looked into the face of eternity.
The search for meaning has always been a part of our nature, but only in the late 19th century did it begin to reach beyond the confines of traditional religion. As society pushed back the limitations of its accomplishments through new technology, it also pushed back the limitations of its beliefs through new forms of speculative fiction, the growth of spiritual groups and practices, and the exploration of psychic phenomena by respectable (and non-respectable) investigators. A glimmering of illimitable light shimmered at the edge of our collective perception.
In the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s, however, this inner urge took on a new force and abruptly exploded into our everyday lives. Perhaps it was spawned by the discovery of nuclear energy, which could destroy cities or supply them with endless power; cause cancer or help to cure it. It may well have been influenced by our recent mastery of flight which served to break down barriers between cultures. New discoveries in electronics allowed instantaneous communication over vast distances, and — once engineering breakthroughs put satellites into orbit — over the entire globe. We put people on the moon, sent probes into the depths of space, and listened for signs of life on other planets.
With the prospect of apocalyptic annihilation, exposure to the transcendent philosophy of the East, and a growing global consciousness, it was prehaps inevitable that we found ourselves enquiring into the very nature of our existence and the scope of the cosmos. We sought out gurus, teachers, mentors, and mystics. With over 4.5 billion people in the world, and a history spanning thousands and thousands of years, it seemed inevitable that at least a few souls had reached enlightenment.
The youth of this period, not yet exposed to the all-pervasive demands of adult life, were the most enthusiastic explorers of this endless horizon, but virtually every age group and social class was also involved. Average people became viscerally aware that life was a lot bigger than their daily existence; middle class men and women discussed philosophical and religious books over cocktails.
As a race, we began thinking in cosmic terms.
We saw the first manned landing on the Moon as merely a prelude to our inevitable voyages to other planets and, perhaps, other civilizations. We studied religions and philosophies outside those of or our own culture’s. Social gatherings frequently involved long discourses about the nature of the universe and what, exactly, “nothingness” was.
Many experimented with drugs in hopes of opening new pathways of thought that might prove less destructive and more comprehensive than those to which we had become accustomed.
The dawning “New Age” perspective could even be seen in our movies, as films like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Godspell, and Jesus Christ Superstar became mass hits. But perhaps its most obvious and ubiquitous incarnation appeared through our music. For the first time since the Middle Ages, a significant number of popular songs dealt not with personal or social issues, but with philosophy and spirituality. Tightly woven into the musical fabric — which still included songs about love and social injustice — were songs inspired by Buddhism, space exploration, aliens, Jesus Christ, Zen, Nietzsche, and the possibility of Cosmic Consciousness.
When all the stars are falling down
Into the sea and on the ground
And angry voices carry on the wind,
A beam of light will fill your head
And you’ll remember what’s been said
By all the good men this world’s ever knownMelancholy Man — The Moody Blues
That’s what we were searching for: the beam of light that would fill our heads.
But as time went by, this movement towards ultimate answers became sidetracked by more prosaic goals. The quest for a brotherhood of man was co-opted by self-serving organisations. The exploration of space was brought to an ignoble end; plans to visit other planets, or even to return to our nearest neighbour, were shelved. Mysticism became commodified, and the accessories to mysticism, such as Yoga mats and pretty crystals, assumed more importance than its philosophy or practice.
“We’re going to out-sixties the sixties!” was a frequent cry among college protest leaders of the ’90s, whose sole interest in that earlier time focused almost exclusively upon its mass demonstrations. But while universal social justice is important, it is meaningless without a universal social philosophy — and the universality of our quest had been quietly, but firmly, shoved to the side by single-issue groups. Our search for the “cosmic” was replaced by the more personal search for career advancement and the right to self-respect — regardless of whether we’d done anything to deserve them. The fledgling concept of a unified spiritual philosophy had turned into a multitude of divisive battles for the right of each particular religion to maintain its outmoded and discriminatory practices.
Collectively we pulled the covers over our heads, shut our eyes against the sunlight breaking through the windows, and returned to our nightmares.
[NB: For a rebuttal to some of the comments here regarding the pitiful state of today’s youth, please see “Youth = Ignorance” at Ziva’s Inferno.]
nonamedufus
August 23, 2010
I think it was the drugs. What did David Crosbie say? I think it was words to the effect,”If you remember the 60s, you weren’t there, man”. Drugs changed our music, our movies, our TV – in short our society. You don’t think Mike Pinder and his fellow Moodies were “experimenting”? It’s like Obama said when asked if he inhaled (You’ll remember Clinton said he didn’t – of course he also said he “didn’t have sex with that woman”) “That was the point”.
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 23, 2010
The drugs had been around for a long time — especially marijuana. Hoffman created LSD in the late ’30s, but mushrooms had been around forever. There was something about this time period that suddenly made them more appealing. (Of course, they were also made illegal around then — a move that has always been guaranteed to increase use.)
Jon in France
August 24, 2010
Serious point, Frank. I was a student in the 1980s so my memories of attitudes then are relatively fresh. What strikes me is the astounding level of nilhilism I encounter in people in their twenties. Most dispiriting.
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2010
The ones I deal with I wouldn’t call nihilists (but then, you’re living in France). It’s more like they’re oblivious. They’re all very concerned about social issues, at least insofar as they parrot whatever platitudes their favourite celebrities are spouting, but it isn’t deep. And spirituality is either a fervid loyalty to their home country’s religion, or a vague, conglomeration of phrases, none of which ever seem to affect what they do or how they actually live. “Dispiriting” is a good word for it.
Leeuna
August 24, 2010
A beautifully written piece, Frank. I miss the 60’s. It was a real happenin, and the music was meaningful, and poetic. The 60’s were inspiring. Today’s young people strike me as being kind of shallow in their views on life. And I feel that the drug problem is much worse today than it was then. I don’t remember any drug wars or cartels back then — or maybe we just didn’t hear so much about it on the news. Anyway, I enjoyed reading this.
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2010
The drug problem is much worse now, but then back in the ’60s they’d only been illegal for a short time. (A headline in a 1967 copy of The Toronto Star says, “City’s legal supply of LSD almost depleted.”) Making drugs illegal, as anyone and everyone really knows, guarantees an upsurge of their use, especially of the more destructive, but more profitable kinds. The “War on Drugs” is not unlike dropping a bomb to extinguish an outhouse fire.
But it was a magical time, wasn’t it?
Linda Medrano
August 24, 2010
I was 21 in 1967 and living in San Francisco during the “Summer of Love”. There was something very magical about that time, and it was more than the drugs. I saw the Moody Blues at the Filmore and at Winterland and they were amazingly good. Hippies, flower power, war protests, music and marijuana. My husband and I shared our first joint to celebrate the birth of our first child. I adore this post by the way.
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2010
You may well have met my wife while you were there. I never saw the Moody Blues live, and I would have loved to. Saw the Stones at Toronto’s Maple Leaf Gardens in 1972, but while I liked them all right, I was never a big fan.
I had my first joint in 1974, after more than seven years reading and studying about the subject. (I always was a spontaneous jump-right-in kind of guy.)
Linda Medrano
August 24, 2010
Oh, I might have met her! How cool is that? Actually, the joint I smoked was the first, and last for a lot of years. I didn’t like it.
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2010
I did. :)
And a few years later it would allow me to learn to type in 24 hours and get a byline in a city newspaper (small city, but still).
Ziva
August 24, 2010
As always, you work wonders with words, Frank. I especially loved the last sentence, but there were just so many great lines. But while I hear and understand the message of the post, I can’t say I’m too fond of the generalization of young people in the comments. This post, and perhaps even more so the comments to this post, has inspired me to write a little something of my own (which will probably be posted in a day or two if I can get around to it).
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2010
I look forward to it, but I’d like to make clear what I was saying about the young people. First of all, the sputtering of cosmic consciousness during the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s was most decidedly not instigated by the youth. It had been simmering for a while and simply came to a boil at that time, perhaps for the reasons I conjecture in my post. Some of the most influential books of this time, for instance, had actually been written years earlier, such as Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf (1932) and Siddhartha (1922). It’s true that the youth were more active in this movement, but that’s to be expected since they were not yet saddled with the responsibilities of adulthood, and were one of the first affluent young generations in modern history with far more time on their hands and far more ability to travel and explore.
The unique quality of what we call “The Sixties” (really starting in the late ’50s and winding up in the mid-to-late ’70s) wasn’t the youth, it was the universality of the “quest,” both geographically and generationally. I have often felt that if anything, my generation was responsible for much of the destruction that came out of the movement. People like Aldous Huxley truly experimented with drugs — most of the youth took them for kicks. Adult thinkers, philosophers, and theologians like Aldous Huxley, Thomas Merton, C. S. Lewis, D. T. Suzuki, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Thomas Khun seriously explored the new framework of science, religion, and consciousness that was arising, while youth leaders like Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Tom Hayden turned the whole thing into activist street theatre and protests. (Not that these weren’t always without cause, but they were hardly of the “cosmic” nature I’m talking about here.)
That said, however, during this time you would have found within almost any group of young people a number who played an instrument (generally two or three), regularly discussed different intellectual concepts, and read at least some philosophy. This simply is not true today (at least not in North America — Europe has always had a much stronger philosophical tradition, and much of this may still be going on there — but it is no longer a global phenomenon the way it was several decades ago). For instance, in my classes I used to ask at the beginning of each semester how many of my students played an instrument. In a good semester there might be one or two, and generally they admitted that they had been forced into it as children and dropped it as soon as possible. As for books, most simply don’t read them, and of those who do, books like Harry Potter and the Twilight series make up the bulk. (Nothing against these books — I love the Harry Potter stories.) Of the one or two “serious” readers that occasionally crop up, they’ve read Naomi Klein’s No Logo and possibly some other party-line political book.
Intellectual pursuits are dismissed as “geeky,” and spirituality consists either of heated defences for their home country’s traditions or vague, and often contradictory statements about Wicca or paganism (with no concept of the history of either).
So just to be clear, this post wasn’t about how great my generation was, but how lucky my generation was to grow up in a time when the world seemed to be pulling its attention from the mundane and contingent to the universal and constant.
There are always smart, articulate, and curious youth. That you are one of them is blatantly obvious from your writing and references (both classical and pop) as well as your wit (the presence of wit is an indication of intelligence — but the lack of wit does not necessarily indicate the opposite).
Anyhow, I’m looking forward to your post. I just wanted to make my own position clear on the generational thing as it pertains to the mid-20th century.
Ziva
August 25, 2010
Frank, don’t worry, you’ve made yourself perfectly clear, and I’m not “attacking” you or your post in any way, I didn’t think you wrote anything that I didn’t agree with, at least to some extent. ;) Your post inspired me with its excellence, not because I felt you tried to send some unfair message about the young generation. What made me want to write was the mentions of young people being nihilist, oblivious, mindless and shallow in the comment field. It made me wonder if we, the new young generation, really are that ignorant, or if a great deal of it is just prejudice against us. I don’t know how things are in the States, but I know that a majority of my friends play some sort of instrument, they have read books (in the plural), and they are at least marginally aware of history and philosophy. All of my Finnish friends speak two or more languages, and they are fully capable of forming an original thought. I’m not talking about 15-year olds now. Teenagers have always been and will always be stupid, even in the 60’s. I’m talking about young adults like myself, who for no apparent reason find themselves categorically labelled as “young, ignorant and mindless” just because it’s “common knowledge” that those are the main characteristics of a young person today.
I’m not at all denying that the universality of the “quest”, as you call it, faded and once again gave way to mundane and arguably less important goals after the late 70’s, I’m not really looking at it from a “quest” point of view, I’m just opposing the notion that being articulate and intelligent is a rare trait in today’s youth compared to the youth of the 60’s. I don’t consider myself particularly smart or articulate, I know many young people who are both smarter and more original in their thinking than I am. It might be a European thing, but I would certainly like to think that young American’s have the capacity for critical thinking as well. In my post, which I’m hoping to finish after work, I’m not saying that the older generation (note: older as in those who experienced the 60’s, not older as in those who are turning 95 this year) is wrong in their views of the youth, I’m simply offering another way to look at it. I might very well come across as naïve and inexperienced, but I’m 25 years old – I AM young and inexperienced. In a few years I probably won’t agree with what I write today, and I’m not going to write some sort of manifesto stating what I believe to be the only truth. I’m not blind; I can easily see why someone might think my generation isn’t as socially or spiritually aware as earlier generations. But I think that it’s good for the health to once in a while take a step back and look at things from another perspective. And that’s exactly what I intend to do.
And now I’ve suddenly made a huge deal out of a simple little blog post that wasn’t going to be anything serious at all. Great work, Ziva, no pressure now.
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 25, 2010
It’s all right, Ziva. The only thing at stake is a Pulitzer Prize. So relax. :)
MikeWJ at TooManyMornings
August 25, 2010
“…Spirituality is either a fervid loyalty to their home country’s religion, or a vague, conglomeration of phrases, none of which ever seem to affect what they do or how they actually live.”
Beautifully stated, Frank, and you deserve a lot of credit for driving straight into the heart of a topic that I often dance around like a court jester because…well, because I’m a little light in the cerebrum but make a pretty good fool, like the one-eyed poet-sirrah in A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller, Jr., if you’re familiar with that book.
I learned to read when I was very young and grew up reading some heady stuff–first Dick and Jane, then the Old and New Testaments, and very quickly Aldous Huxley, Woody Guthrie, Thomas Merton, Mary Shelly, Robert Louis Stevenson, H.G. Wells, Bram Stoker, C. S. Lewis, Malcolm Muggeridge, Orson Scott Card, Hermann Hesse, Bob Dylan, John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, J. Sidlow Baxter, Martin Buber, Søren Kierkegaard, Stan Lee, Scott Adams, Frederick Buechner, Robert Heinlein, J.R.R. Tolkien, P.J. O’Rourke, Dave Berry, Bob Kane and many other great thinkers of our time.
And I loved nothing more than to take that new-found knowledge and sit around at night with my friends drinking beer and discussing subjects none of us understood but desperately wanted to understand.
But now those days seem to be behind me–and all of us, I think. After all, there are careers to be managed, iPods to buy, political races to be won, global warming to combat, Guitar Heroes to be created, and coffee to be drunk, preferably with three cubes of sugar and a bit of creamy froth at the top. Nobody seems to have the time or the inclination to discuss philosophical things anymore, not with the good-natured passion for hearing and learning and challenging and being challenged that I remember so fondly.
Perhaps we have all become like Kanye West, who recently said, “Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a book’s autograph. I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life.”
And perhaps that is what we should aspire to, especially if it’s going to result in songs like “Jesus Walks” or the equally significant “Kanye’s Workout Plan.”
Or perhaps people are still talking and thinking things through and it’s just me who’s moved on because I’ve got kids and a mini-van and 900-square-inch Ducane barbecue grill.
I don’t know.
How would I?
But I dislike the New Age that we now live in because it seems to be marked by soft thinking, rock throwing, and a general inability–as you noted–to adamantly ferret out the right thing and then do it. In fact, there no longer seems to be a right thing, just people with opinions who are all too willing to fight for their right to party.
Anyway, really I wish you hadn’t written this column, because now I feel tired, and a bit like Mr. Sad Pants.
Send me a couple of keys, would you?
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 25, 2010
Ah, dear friend, I feel the same. I guess that’s why I wrote it. (Although now I could kick myself for adding that video of “Melancholy Man” because it simply will not leave my head — the simplicity of its note progression up and down the scale is haunting and I can feel my fingers trying to play the harmony — if only I could find a few people who played guitars and maybe a bass. A keyboard too, but not if the guy’s all synthed-out.)
Spending nights with friends arguing philosophy — and having it matter; that wasn’t a side hobby — it was where we really lived. At least a lot of the time. One of my favourite anecdotes, gleaned from a Colin Wilson book, is of two Russian men drinking vodka and arguing through the night. Finally one man says he wants to go to bed, and the other roars, “How can we go to bed? We have not yet decided if God exists!”
That’s a lot what it was like.
The books. Ah, the books.
I’m a science fiction groupie — of course I’m familiar with Canticle for Lebowitz. A great piece of literature.
Like you, I started with Dick and Jane. Still think they’re a decent introduction to literature. All the elements are there. Action. Plots. Well-defined characters. And like you, I can see little transition from there to the Old and New Testaments. An early introduction to the core theological themes, I believe, is invaluable for children: these themes, even if not important in terms of an actual deity, are at the very least a universal index to our specie’s inner consciousness. For me, the theology stuck, but took a back seat starting when I was around eight to science, with a focus on astronomy, physics, and the more intriguing kind of geography books (think “hollow earth,” “Mu,” and “Atlantis”). This led to Plato’s dialogues (the Atlantis connection, naturally) and UFOology. (I have a signed letter from Major Donald Keyhoe, founder of NICAP — National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena — from that time.)
And then there was the science fiction, of course. Not even going to touch that here.
I never read Woody Guthrie: didn’t know he wrote, outside of song. Thomas Merton, of course — after all, I was still partially an aspiring theologian, but then, weren’t most of us at that time? In one form or another.
Concerning the rest:
Mary Shelly (yes), Robert Louis Stevenson (yes), H.G. Wells, (hell yes), Bram Stoker (not until much later, actually), C. S. Lewis (a giant of a man and a giant of a Christian), Malcolm Muggeridge (funny, smart, had a strange grudge against Colin Wilson, and so lost points with me for that), Orson Scott Card (I met him briefly once), Hermann Hesse (the love child of Schopenhauer and Buddha), Bob Dylan (had to get older to like him), John Steinbeck (became a fanatic Steinbeck fan for a while), Ernest Hemingway (always made me uncomfortable, like being with John Wayne or Clint Eastwood — I’d always feel like I was talking to much), J. Sidlow Baxter (who?), Martin Buber (are thou kidding?), Søren Kierkegaard (a man who could write an entire book of prefaces is a man worthy of notice), Stan Lee (in my hands, I tell you — back in the summer camp I had Spiderman #1 in my hands!), Scott Adams (only his comics), Frederick Buechner (defence for the Maple Leafs?), Robert Heinlein (I do not have time — Heinlein is one of the master craftsmen out there — I mean, he wrote an entire novel about the first flight to the moon in which not a single scene is set on the moon! he was a master), J.R.R. Tolkien (that whole naming-my-kid-Aragorn thing, right?), P.J. O’Rourke (TV only), Dave Berry (my modern comic hero, almost up there with classic Thurber and Benchley), Bob Kane (didn’t you love his cameo in Batman?) and many other great thinkers of our time.
Kayne West is truly a spokesperson for his generation. Or at least, so the mass adulation of him by so many of this generation would seem to indicate. His sentiments I’ve heard from many students and with roughly the same skill in articulation.
There are plenty of things to blame: commercialisation, advertising, government, the Internet, modern communications, family, oppressors, fate. But really, all these things simply provide what we want. And I really want a lot of that. I like being clean. It aids in the thinking process. Having access to the Internet is the best intellectual boon since the library — and it’s one hell of a lot faster and more up-to-date, too. (Not to disparage libraries. Even today they have their place.) I like having enough food, and knowing that, aside from the occasional recall, it’s safe. I like the fact that when my appendix burst it didn’t kill me, and that the modern medical attention that saved my life didn’t cost me anything (nya, nya!)
Pretty well everything I like comes from civilisation, and civilisations call for a lot of work. We might make some jobs easier. We’ve been doing that for hundreds of years. But in the end, there are still a hundred thousand menial, soul-destroying jobs that have to be done, and that’s what most of us end up doing.
The appeal of a movie like Eat Drink Prey is that it tells us something we know to be true: that we need to turn our attention back to things beyond our everyday survival and rekindle our need for meaning. But our collective spirituality has become so bankrupt that it can only find meaning in exotic, but comfortable settings, sporting perfectly coiffed hair.
The movie Zachariah had more understanding of real spirituality (although I hate the word “spirituality” almost as much as I hate the word “blog”). Come down to it, so was Batman. (Although for Batman I admit you really need his marvellous toys.)
I don’t know the way around it. Not right now.
Right now, I’m just tired.
Flo
August 27, 2010
Frank – I’m happy that you put the video in. It took me back to some very happy times. Great music – like the King Crimson album. wonderful! And I remember sitting around listening to conversations in the living room, and trying to keep up. I loved it – and the boys who hung out there.
Frank Lee MeiDere
August 28, 2010
Weren’t they great times? One of the funniest, of course, was when there were no more chairs so I sat on the refrigerator, thereby giving the cat a trauma that I don’t think he ever quite got over. And thanks for providing an environment in which we could sit around discussing God-knows-what until the wee hours of the morning.
Flo
August 29, 2010
Yes, they were great times. And you’re welcome – it was fun for me. Those kids took the place of the ones I didn’t have. Oh, yes! Poor D.C. he really was traumatized when he saw you sitting in his place! Weird cat. And thanks for being the best son any Mom could have.