Talking of imposed utopias in the last blog, I recognized something that was unrealized in my book Dream Weaver. Some three quarters of the way through, I wrote the Chapter "Back to the Garden" about my visit to one of the few successful hippie communes, this one numbering over one thousand people in central Tennessee. This was not an imposed utopia; the people there had the spirit and you could feel it. Their communal lifestyle was a result of the collective spirit, not the other way around. It was as it should be and is among monastic and religious orders and such groups as the Amish (who give their young the option of becoming "English," as they put it). It was, I thought at the time, what I was looking for, but I realized after a week there that I was an individualist - that is, an ordinary American who put his own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness above the group. This, as I understood it and still do, was not a bad thing - rather, it was appropriate to the spirit that I then had, and still do.
I left the commune, and in the first paragraph of the next chapter I wrote, "There [at the commune] it had become clear that any community of place, any community that would outlast the generations, could only be obtained through the sacrifice of the individual. Since I had learned that this was beyond me, any amount of self-reflection would have shown that my greatest reason for life on the road was a chimera. What place was left now?" What was meant by "community" was exactly the communal unity, and I had learned that it was not my cup of tea. Why then was I still on the road? What then was I still looking for?
What was I looking for? In the few chapters that remained, I again experienced religious communities of other stripes and again rejected them for the same reason - my individuality. And I was right to do so. The inner self, the spirit, was not there for the task. And what I should have learned - and gradually did - was that transformation must first come from within. It is cliched, I know, but usually treated far too casually. What I was looking for was still externalized by me. It took decades after returning to normal life to fully appreciate this. Further, it explains to myself, which is sometimes left in the dark as to the movement of its own inner spirit, why I have come to detest top-down collectivism. It is, first and foremost, a violation of spirit - which is a direct violation of human dignity. The ends do not only not justify the means in matters like this, but the means never reach the end. Force cannot change the spirit in this way. And Marxists are wrong - the means or modes or ownership of production cannot do this alone, either. Spirit must be brought out, not beaten into shape. This can be done by free reason and by example - or through the sheer brilliance of those few rare people who emanate great spirit - but never through force or trickery. This results in a confinement of the spirit, and with it, resentment and violence. With spirit, the means and the ends must be the same. One cannot violate the first and achieve a greater version of the second.
A criticism of my book has been that I left a great potential - the accumulated experiences of my prolonged hitchhiking ordeal - unfinished. This is true. But I was unfinished at the time (and in regards to many things, still am); to make a conclusion would have been dishonest, which is also a trick, a violation of spirit. No, we often don't know some things, and we never know everything. And anyone who brings you to a utopia against your will, or who tricks you into believing in one, is being dishonest: he is saying he knows better than you, and in the end, knows everything. George Orwell called that person "Big Brother."
I could say now to "look within" for spirit, for that is what I know and think. By it I do not mean to force one to do so; it is merely my honest statement. But if the spirit moves you, I would also say to "look without." In reflection, I have done this too, through my readings, through my attendance in church services and so on. In fact, look where your spirit guides you. If freedom and dignity is on the path, it could be the path you should take. FK
I left the commune, and in the first paragraph of the next chapter I wrote, "There [at the commune] it had become clear that any community of place, any community that would outlast the generations, could only be obtained through the sacrifice of the individual. Since I had learned that this was beyond me, any amount of self-reflection would have shown that my greatest reason for life on the road was a chimera. What place was left now?" What was meant by "community" was exactly the communal unity, and I had learned that it was not my cup of tea. Why then was I still on the road? What then was I still looking for?
What was I looking for? In the few chapters that remained, I again experienced religious communities of other stripes and again rejected them for the same reason - my individuality. And I was right to do so. The inner self, the spirit, was not there for the task. And what I should have learned - and gradually did - was that transformation must first come from within. It is cliched, I know, but usually treated far too casually. What I was looking for was still externalized by me. It took decades after returning to normal life to fully appreciate this. Further, it explains to myself, which is sometimes left in the dark as to the movement of its own inner spirit, why I have come to detest top-down collectivism. It is, first and foremost, a violation of spirit - which is a direct violation of human dignity. The ends do not only not justify the means in matters like this, but the means never reach the end. Force cannot change the spirit in this way. And Marxists are wrong - the means or modes or ownership of production cannot do this alone, either. Spirit must be brought out, not beaten into shape. This can be done by free reason and by example - or through the sheer brilliance of those few rare people who emanate great spirit - but never through force or trickery. This results in a confinement of the spirit, and with it, resentment and violence. With spirit, the means and the ends must be the same. One cannot violate the first and achieve a greater version of the second.
A criticism of my book has been that I left a great potential - the accumulated experiences of my prolonged hitchhiking ordeal - unfinished. This is true. But I was unfinished at the time (and in regards to many things, still am); to make a conclusion would have been dishonest, which is also a trick, a violation of spirit. No, we often don't know some things, and we never know everything. And anyone who brings you to a utopia against your will, or who tricks you into believing in one, is being dishonest: he is saying he knows better than you, and in the end, knows everything. George Orwell called that person "Big Brother."
I could say now to "look within" for spirit, for that is what I know and think. By it I do not mean to force one to do so; it is merely my honest statement. But if the spirit moves you, I would also say to "look without." In reflection, I have done this too, through my readings, through my attendance in church services and so on. In fact, look where your spirit guides you. If freedom and dignity is on the path, it could be the path you should take. FK
RSS Feed