8/12/2019 Our Hatred of Values-The Aquarian Conspiracy_Hugh Mercer Curtler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-hatred-of-values-the-aquarian-conspiracyhugh-mercer-curtler 1/8

On the inversion of contemporary consciousness

Our Hatred of Values

Hugh Mercer Curtler

Modern Man is progressively losing his understanding of values and his sense of propor-tions. This failure to understand essential realities is extremely serious. It leads us in-fallibly to the violation of the fundamental laws o f human equilibrium.

gor Stravinsky

WESTERN CIVILIZATION is clearly in themidst of a cultural revolution that is bound

up with w hat Eliseo Vivas ch arac terizes asmodern m an’s “h at re d of values,” his re-jection of th e reality, o r the objectivity, ofvalues. This revolution has been labeled“the aquarian conspiracy” by the authorof th e book by tha t title tha t sets forth thepa ram ete rs of t he cons piracy in no uncer-tain terms.’

In this paper I shall examine this “con-spiracy” as a sym ptom of the illness that

besets our civilization in a n attem pt to s eehow it affects ou r attitudes tow ard values.1 shall also exam ine “secular theology” asa related tendency that also operates froma conviction that objective values ar e outof fashion an d antithe tical to right think-ing. In particular, I shall discuss MarilynFerguson’s The Aquarian Conspiracy andHarvey ox’s The Secular City and shallcritique bo th of these books with an eye

toward their status as indicators thatreflect fundamental attitudes and move-men ts within W estern culture.

We might begin by noting one centralproblem with the Aquarian conspiracy,which is its tendency toward exclusivity.The m ovem ent focuses on the function of“right-hemispheric” affective) intellec-

tion, wh ich is both interesting and impor-tant. But in their preoccupation with the

“new” approach to thinking, the con-spirators igno re the old ways of thinking.One can prefer the poets to dry philoso-ph ers, the brilliance of insight to thetediousness of discursive thou gh t, withoutinsisting that this is the only way to a pproach life and its mysteries. Indeed,seve ral years ago o ne of th e m ost sensibleamo ng those advocating new approache sto problem solving warne d:

It is imp ortant to no te, in the con-tex t of the trad itional esoter ic psychol-ogies, that the recent discovery of a

right-hemisphere activation in intuitivecognition does not reduce the mentalaspec ts of esoteric kno wledge to “right-brain functioning.” I t does not allow aperson who might be interested in amore complete consciousness to decide

merely that he or she “understands”it as an “activity for the right hem-isphere.” The comparison again iswith learning language: one mightrealize tha t language dep ends predomi-nantly upon the left hemisphere, butthis useful realization does not con-stitute learning lang uage.One must still

242 Summer 985

8/12/2019 Our Hatred of Values-The Aquarian Conspiracy_Hugh Mercer Curtler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-hatred-of-values-the-aquarian-conspiracyhugh-mercer-curtler 2/8

study gra m m ar, spelling, writing, etc.2

Regrettably, advo cates of t he “a qua rianconspiracy,” who frequ ently exhibit mo reenthusiasm than good sense, seem to hav elargely ignored this warning. Indeed, it isthe tendency toward exclusiveness, mo rethan any oth er single featu re of the“aquarian conspiracy,” that is objec-tionable and even dangerous. What thistende ncy does, with respect to values, is toundermine any attempt to ground valuesin the “real” world by insisting that valuejudgm ents tha t claim any d eg ree of objec-

tivity ar e m ere rem nants of a Puritan ethicthat is intolerant in the extreme and ab-solutistic undernea th a nd as such a re t o berejected out of court as ex am ple s of oldwa ys of thinking. Since wha t is new ispresumed to be best, then the “aquarianconspiracy” advocates a relativism thatredu ces values totally to intuition and feel-ing.

What I am concerned with here is to see

how a “conspiracy” that adv oca tes ex-clusively intuitive, non-discursive thinkin gunderm ines our grasp of values and ,ultimately, our ability to understand anddeal with m any of the problem s tha t con-front and co nfound mo dern m an. My goalis not to sound an alarm or to exercise areaction to cha nge a s such, but simply toex am ine critically som e of th e assum p-tions that permeate our culture in an at-

tempt to better understand them and,perhaps, to move toward a more in-clusive, syno ptic view of th e whole. It ismy suspicion that modern man in his re-jection of trad itional way s of seeing has int h e words of Ortega y Gasset “flattenedth e world an d m ade of it a sheet.” Much islost in this view , as it is in t h e thoug htlessdevotion to the conviction that what isnew is best, and it is my concern torecover what has been lost while, at thesam e time, acknowledging that muc h oft h e new view is worth serious considera-tion. We must beware that we not travelthe confusing and perplexing byways oft h e twentieth century with bags emptiedof th e very tools we need to find our way .

One cann ot fault Marilyn F ergu son for a

lack of enthu siasm . Sh e has written afascinating and an important book. If sheis correct, what she calls the “aquarianconspiracy” er label for a mov eme nttoward “love and light” after a “dark andviolent ag e” s widespread and growingsteadily. The movem ent seeks to be opento new way s of seeing and know ing theworld, increased tolerance and acceptance, and new “paradigms” to replacethose tha t hav e worn out. In part, at least,the “conspiracy” is really a reaction th at isborn of a sense of disenchantment anddisillusionment tha t se es man y of our con-

tem po rary proble ms as the result of a rigiddevotion to logic an d science and a blindadherence to the “technological im-perative,” as it wa s referred to by Jacque sEllul.

As in so many movem ents that are bornof a reaction, th ere seem s to be at timesmo re h ea t than light in the “aquarian con-spiracy,” despite the fact that there arefeatures of the conspiracy that recom-

m end it to an y though tful student of t hetwentieth century. Ferguson’s book, as acase in point, tends to revel in exaggera-tion an d half-truth coup led with a distress-ing lack of self-criticism. This can b e se en ,in particu lar, by the autho r’s refusal in-ability?) to e xclude any one from the con-spiracy exc ept, perhaps, those whocriticize it r to sugg est what do an dwhat do not constitute “legitimate”

aquarian experiences.Ferguson’s list of au thorities is astonish-

ing in its inclusiveness rom Jung andMenninger to Niels Bohr and TheodoreRoszak. The re a re seven an d a half pagesof nam es at the en d of th e book in herName Index. M ost, if not all, of these peo-ple a re included in th e “con spiracy” orhave made conspiratorial waves fromtime to time, an d o ne hesitates to suggestthat su ch a large num ber o f people couldhave been “wrong” and that, perhaps,the re is less to t he “conspiracy” thanmeets the eye. Additionally, “transfor-mative experience s” hose experiencesmarking a transformation from old waysof thinking to New Ways can comefrom an yw here a nd a t any time. The list of

Modern Age 243

8/12/2019 Our Hatred of Values-The Aquarian Conspiracy_Hugh Mercer Curtler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-hatred-of-values-the-aquarian-conspiracyhugh-mercer-curtler 3/8

such experiences includes hypnosis ,meditation “of every description,” Sufistories, est seminars, dr eam journals, an d,of course, Easte rn religions. In a wo rd ,“anything can ~ 0 r k . l ’ ~

One seek s a criterion of legitimacy invain and begins to suspect after a timethat the request would be dismissed as a nexam ple of “left-hemisphere” thinking, asort of heresy. In place of an y suchcriterion one finds instead an indiscrimi-na nt “cult of th e New,” a rejec tion of“dead philosophies, illusions, and oldscience,” and a call for a “challenge of

t r a d it i~ n .” ~ ne begins to suspect , also,that the expe riences of th e Marquis d eSad e rank right alongside those of Ga ndh ian d Martin Luther King as examp les of t heNew Ways of thinking so long as they a refresh and interesting and do not stink of“illusions and old science.” And this isprecisely why the reader is left confusedand dissatisfied in th e e nd. Any attem pt todiscriminate, since it mu st aris e from “left-

hem ispheric” analytic thinking, is ipso facto suspect, and as a result one is over-whe lmed by the heap of disparate a ndconflicting ideologies that, presumably,constitute this m ovem ent.

One major confusion that requires m en-tion ha s to do with the n atu re of reaso nand what is and what is not “rational.”Ferguson is keen to promote “newparadigm s” of thou ght, an d her bo ok

repeatedly incorporates twin columns ofsuch “new paradigms” alongside “oldparadigms” that ar e to be displaced. Suchshor than d devices are of questionablevalue as analytical tools since they suc-cumb to the tendency to sweep under theconceptual carpet a grea t man y useful no-tions as exam ples of “old wa ys ofthinking.” Typical in this regard is the

author’s tendency to identify “reason”with logic an d the ga the rin g of da ta by

which she apparently means to focus at-tention on the minds ability to analyzeand draw inferences). This notion is oftencontrasted with “intuition,” which in-cludes such d iverse phenomena as“hunches, feelings, insights, [and a]non linear holistic) se ns e of pa ttern.”5

Th e presumption is that reason and ra-tionality are the villains in the drama ofthe demise of our culture, and thereburbles ben eath the sur fac e of th e“aquarian conspiracy” an attempt todiscredit re aso n, so-called, as th e cau se ofmost, if not all, of our co nte m po rary ill-nesses. But an y careful analysis of th eproblems of our era would reveal thatthey are not at all th e result of an ex cess ofrationality. On th e co ntrary , such a claimbord ers on the ab surd , as does the implicitnotion that we will be rescued from ourpresent distressful situation by “intuition

an d hu nche s,” wh ich, if not scrutinized bycritical reason, can result in calamity.Indeed, if we had to distinguish any

single factor as the major cause of som an y of th e crises facing m odern ma n, itis much more likely that we have ex-hibited too little reason in the sense thatwe have, typically, followed the path ofshort-run self-interest in the service ofEllul’s “technological imperative,” which

asks only how and never why. Such a pathdivorced from a concern for the long-runprobable consequences is in no w ay to beconfused with a “rational” approach tohuman problems.

As I have suggested, what is lacking inthe “aquarian con spiracy” is a conspiratorwho exhibits caution and a healthfulrespect for th e capacities as well as theshor tcom ings) of critical rea son . For som e

reason Robert Ornstein, whose book wasreferred to earlier, is not named byFerguson among her conspirators. I takethis to be an oversight, since, as we h avesee n, it is difficult to e xclude an yo ne , andit is one that is costly. Ornstein has thesens e of caution and a willingness todiscriminate that a re altogether lacking inFerguson’s view of th ings.

In The Mind Field Ornstein warn s of thevery tendencies we have discovered inFerguson’s book. We find am on g th e con-spirators, for example, a preoccupationwith “autonomy” and self-understanding,which is not, however, to be understoodas a movement away from self-interestan d e go gratification. For all its talk abo ut“t he principles of social action an d institu-

244 Summer 1985

8/12/2019 Our Hatred of Values-The Aquarian Conspiracy_Hugh Mercer Curtler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-hatred-of-values-the-aquarian-conspiracyhugh-mercer-curtler 4/8

tional change,” the conspiracy begins andend s with a concern for “who we are andwho we can be.” In the end the aquarianconspiracy perpetuates the cult of the m e

and encourages the deep-seated nar-cissism that p erm eates ou r culture an d ag-gra va tes our “ hat red of values.” Adh er-en ts of such a world view, says Ornstein,of te n exhib it sym pto ms of “t he yoga of in-fantilism and self-preoccupation.” Hedismisses mu ch of what lies at the h ea rt ofwhat Ferguson calls “the conspiracy” asm ere self-indulgence rathe r than genuine“consciousness development,” or wha t

Ferguson calls “transformation.” In aword:

These tendencies are all too commonamong the “personal growth” adher-ents. Th e sam e self-preoccupation ishere confused with “growth,” nowmerely redirected from the ob servationof depre ssio n to the q uest for ecstasy oremotion.6

Ornstein refers to these tendencies andconfusions as a part of “th e psychiatroidmentation,” and stresses the need for“service and humility in the place of self-preoccupa tion.. In any real attem pt atconscious development, attention needsto be directed away from the self from thepsychotherapeutic ‘growth’ or emotionallevels, and away from the piecemeal

mystical techniques as well, in orde r that aperso n may enco un ter aspects of his sur-roundings other than the ordin ary self. Inan undegenerated esoteric tradition, theor di na ry . self is not to be continuallymassag ed, pandered to, affirmed, or eve n‘observed,’ but me rely se t aside as anunreliable judge of ev ent s outside its prov-ince.’I7

Ferguson, for her part, insists that the

“aquarian conspiracy” is not merelyan othe r side of th e cult of th e me . W hatconspirators discover through meditationan d other form s of “psychotechn ology” isa “n ew und erstan ding of s e l f . . one thathas little resemblance to the ego, self-ishness, self-lessness. There are multipledimensions of self; a newly integratedsen se of o nene ss as an individual a

Modern Age

linkage with others as if they areoneself.”8 Unfortunately, Ferguson israther vague on this point and unclear,especially, on th e question of how w e ar e

to recognize this new self .as anythingother than the one the egoists havealw ays found at the cente r of their worldview.

What Ornstein adds to the “aquarianconspiracy,” in addition to a critical at-titude, is a sense that the self can com e tobe only through something else. We sawthis in s om e of his comm ents quotedabove . He distrusts m any of the ramblings

of th e gurus of t h e cult of the me out ofstated preference for a “return to thew or ld ’ in th e Sufi tradition), which insiststhat one can find oneself only by losingoneself in “ an alignm ent with ac tive life as

it is lived.”g The implications of this vieware major with respect to our attempt tounderstand the contemporary “hatred ofvalues.” One cannot find values “outth er e” in th e world if h is attention is

always focused on his own experience oftha t world, exclusively. Small wond er it is

that values ar e reduced to evaluation in aworld view that cannot see beyond theego and its highly personal, unshared ex-perience. If on e agre es with Ferguson thatthe re is a “conspiracy” amo ng those whoshare this view, one is simply agreeingthat such an attitude is becoming ever

m ore widesprea d. To call this a new wayof thinking is simply to voice a preferencefor a mo re personalized, egocentric m an-ne r of being-in-the-world. On e suspectsthat such a preference has always beenwith us and is not in itself pernicious, butits tendencies toward exclusiveness andits suspicion of anythin g othe r tha n itselfmost certainly are, because they lead inthe end to fanaticism.

The same confusion that one findsamong conspirators between values andevaluation, that rejects “right/wrong,black/white” thinking as “judgmental”and therefore unacceptable because itprefers a view through a sugar cube lacedwith LSD, s, as we have suggested here,at the roots of ou r con tem pora ry “h atre dof values.” And it is this view, inte res ting-

245

8/12/2019 Our Hatred of Values-The Aquarian Conspiracy_Hugh Mercer Curtler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-hatred-of-values-the-aquarian-conspiracyhugh-mercer-curtler 5/8

ly, that also voices its preference for“secular theology,” which is nothing m or enor less tha n a theolog y based as Nietz-sche saw so clearly) on a rejection of

transcendent God and an objective valuehierarchy out of a convictim that “allvalues are relative” and , in th e en d, as th ecre ato r of value, the view that m an is God.We shall not e xam ine the question here ofwhether this is or is not good theology, butwe shall examine rather closely the im-plications of this view with reg ard to ourconte mp orary hatr ed of values.

The respo nse of Harve y Cox to w hat h e

calls “the collapse of traditiona l religion”is one of acquiescence . Rather tha n w astehis time and reputation fighting a losingbattle in th e tre nch es, he chooses to enliston the side of the invading horde b ybroadcasting the news back home to thepartisans. One mu st, in all seriousness, askhow a theologian can espouse a creed ofsecu larism which flies in the face of everybasic tenet of Christian theology. Cox

makes the at tempt, and the conceptualsleight of hand is as fascinating as it is

revealing. It masks the same tendenciestoward relativism that characterize the“aquarian conspiracy” and evidencessom e of the sa m e confusion as well.

Outrageous though it may seem, Coxseeks throughout his widely read TheSecular City to maintain that secularism

by which he m eans the “turning of [man’s]attention away from other worlds andtoward this one” s not a new trend, butone whose sources lie in the Bible. Ofspec ial interest to us is Cox’s claim th at t h eBible advo cates “relativism,” which is oneof the faces of secularism. In this regard,the Bible is “very close to the modernsocial sciences” in its attem pt to “relativise

he gods an d their values.”1° This form

of relativism is ch arac ter ize d by Cox as“constructive relativism,” which requires“real maturity” to understand and ap-preciate. One must not wallow in theadolescent attitude of nihilism which is“merely a phase of th e rela tivization ofvalues ” but one must “mov e beyond thisby rejecting th e dang erou s precritical illu-sion that his va lues a re ultimate.”’* Values

ar e in flux, subject to change an d “condi-tioned by their history and [therefore]cla im no finality.”’* How Cox finds thisdoctrine in the Bible is a mystery, but we

must av oid the tem ptation to sp ecu late inorder to pursue larger game. Cox, like so

many of his contemporaries, has suc-cum bed to th e basic conceptual confusionof mistaking values for evaluation, th e ob-ject for the process by which the objectsa re know n. This confusion has bee n nicelyanalyzed by N L Gifford, who notes thatsocial scientists and would-be social scien-tists, nCe theologians) make “universal”

claims about relative phenomena andthere fore reveal a basic inconsistency thatthe y fail to subject to critical scrutiny. T hisinconsistency arises from “a failure todistinguish cultures and persons [andvalues, we might add] as objects of

knowledge from conditions under whichknowledge is possible. ”

“Descriptive statemen ts a bout a cultureare not the same as prescriptive state-

ments about which beliefs one shouldaccept or w hat one should do.”I3 W hatCox has done as a consequence of thisconfusion is to infer from the rather ob-vious fact tha t ou r sen se of values is in fluxand subject to history that thereforevalues are also. One cannot deny that aperson’s, and a culture’s, sen se o f what isvaluable changes an d that it therefore hasa history. This simply means that valuejudgments are corrigible and that ourgrasp of values is never absolute. But insom e important sense of this term , thevalues themselve s ar e absolute spe-cially in th e con text of th e Jud aeo-Christian tradition. Killing, adultery, andtheft are wrong, simply. The Decaloguema kes this clear, though theologians hav ebeen intent to argue through the years

that in certain circumstances it would beworse not to kill or steal s in the caseofself-defense or w hen one’s child is starv-ing.

One suspects that Cox is so intent toavo id a P uritan absolutism that insists tha twe know what is right and wrong, onceand for all, that he ignores the imp ortantdistinction between what we think to be

46 Summer 985

8/12/2019 Our Hatred of Values-The Aquarian Conspiracy_Hugh Mercer Curtler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-hatred-of-values-the-aquarian-conspiracyhugh-mercer-curtler 6/8

the case and wh at is the case. The reasonthe objectivist insists upon this distinctionwhich m akes little difference in fact, since

on the level of our partial grasp of values

we a re faced with disagreem ent and con-fusion) is tha t it allows him a way out ofth e morass of relativism, at least in princi-ple, as he seek s to resolve perplexities. Wecan applaud Cox’s attempt to instill intoChristian theology a de gree of tolerancethat has been missing from that religionfor two thousand years, but such an at-tempt ought not to undermine thesystematic grou ndw ork of value theory

and mak e it virtually impossible to resolvedifferences of opinion in a rationa l way .To see this more clearly, let us examineso me of th e more subtle ram ifica tions ofobjectivism in contrast with relativism.

What the doctrine maintains, in itssimplest form, is that values such as, forexam ple, nobility and charity ar e truly in-trinsically) better tha n, sa y, frugality a ndfriendliness. While we might want to

qualify these judgm ents in th e light of fur-ther investigation, since our grasp of

values is never certain, we can nonethe-less say with som e confiden ce that “cour-age, saintliness, and wisdom are higherthan the values which a technologicalcivilization pursues, those which con-tribute to bodily comfort.”14 This viewmakes more sense than we might at firstimagine, since mo st of us would agree , to

take a simple example, that the study ofliterature an d history is intrinsically m or evalua ble than t he study of bingo an dpoker. But even such a simple judgmentinvolves som e sort of hierarchical sche meof objec tive values , an d this notion sh ou ldnot alarm us simply because it might,possibly, lead to the comp letely differen tclaim that we know once an d for all) wh atthis hierarchy is.

Eliseo Vivas has presented this viewwith typical forcefulness, and we can dono better than to quote him at length onthis point:

It is to the intrinsic an d objective orde rof rank that men app eal wh en for anyreason they condemn the hierarchy of

Modern Age

values acknowledg ed by th e society ofwhich they a re m embers. The structurethus appealed to, against which ex-isting iniquities are measured, is an

ideal and need not be fully known . Theorder of rank is known to some extent,since it is at least know n as imperfectlyemb odied in the acknow ledged values,but o ur kno wled ge of it can never beperfect.

Nevertheless, any human conflict thattransce nds m ere legality is decided, if itis decided morally, by re fere nc e to thisranking. This is possible because thesearch to which the perplexity givesrise leads to an effort to grasp moreclearly the objective hierarchy ofvalues as envisioned from the stand-point of circumstances of which theperplexity is a part.. It is donethrough the dialectical process byme ans of which claims ar e clarified andth e root of the conflict bro ught to light.After that, men must depend upon oneanother’s good will. A prop osed resolu-tion to a mo ral perplexity is an attem ptto formulate more adequately than wasdone previously the correct order ofobjective values. Whether the formula-tion is or is not valid has to be decideddialectically by giving and receivinganswers in friendly intercourse. This isa process which is extrem ely inefficientand which tends to break down withappalling ease ; but it is the only o ne w ehave . The h ierarch y of values, as ideal,subsists independently of its formula-tion and , like the discov ery of the lawsof nat ure , is subject to error. The re is,however, this difference, that interestsan d passions interfere with ou r g rasp ofthe structu re of physical na tu re con-siderably less, if at all, than they dowith our knowle dge of the orde r and

rank amon g values.15

If our analysis is correct, then w e hav euncovered a possible explanation ofmo dern ma n’s “ha tred of values,” to wit,his confusion of value with evaluation .Dangerous though it is I should like tosugg est tha t th e reaso ns for this confusion

247

8/12/2019 Our Hatred of Values-The Aquarian Conspiracy_Hugh Mercer Curtler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-hatred-of-values-the-aquarian-conspiracyhugh-mercer-curtler 7/8

arise from a fundamental inversion ofmodern consciousness, away from objectsto the self. Evidence abounds that m odernman’s concern for himself amounts to a

preoccupation with himself that is ex-cessive.As Edmund Husserl has shown, human

consciousness is intentional in that italways has an object. When that objectbecomes, as it has, the human subjectitself, there follows a reduction of all ex-perience to personal experience and adiminishing of th e field of con sciou sness t othe v anishin g point of the ego , or th e self.

This sort of consc iousne ss mig ht well b echaracterized as “adolescent,” becausesuch self-preoccupation is typical ofadolescents and quite appro priate as astage in the maturation process). It ex-hibits an astonishing lack of awareness ofthe world and, consequently, a lack ofaw aren ess of others . Herbert M arcuse w asalert to the signs of this “pe rv er ted ’ con-sciousness when he noted, twenty years

ago , that:

The degree to which the population isallowed to break the peace whereverthe re still is peac e and silence, to be ug-ly and to uglify things, to oo ze familiari-ty, to o ff en d against good form, isfrightening. It is frightening bec ause itexpresses the lawful and even organ-ized effort to reject the oth er in his ownright, to prevent autonomy even in asmall, rese rved sp he re of existence. Inthe overdeveloped countries, an ever-larger part of the popula tion beco me sone huge captive audience apturednot by a totalitarian regim e, but by th eliberties of th e citizens whose media ofamusement and elevation compel theOth er to parta ke of their sights, sound s,

and smells.l6

What we ar e describing here is no merestage or tempo rary aberration. It is a fun-damental alteration of man’s way of en-coun tering his world, a “perversion” of hisconsciousness because it is marked by aturning inward a nd by a diminished world.When one’s consciousness of th e O ther

reduc es to a sen se of th e Other-as-an-object for ego-gratification, when , tha t is,the Other loses his independe nce an d hisauto nom y, then the re is little in the way of

totally selfish action wh ose goal is nothin gmore than self-indulgence. One suspectsat this point that the only way to avoidcha os in such a world of isolated eg os isthe shad ow sen se of the Other as a possi-ble threat to the existence of the e go andthat all morality reduces to self-interest.When self-interest becom es short-ru n self-interest and a person loses the ability toimagine the consequences and impli-

cations of his or h er actions, then mutualself-destruction cann ot be far aw ay. T hereis considerable evidence that W estern civ-ilization has already moved to this stage.

It is relatively easy to ignore theevidence and to insist, ostrich-like, thatthings are no different than they havealways been: men have always beenpreoccupied with themselves which ishardly our point). I t is relatively eas y to in-

sist that a loss of a sen se of objectivevalues and the displacem ent of ma nner sand “good form” by tantra yoga and“human relations” sessions where par-ticipants “let it all hang out” is only so

much react ionism. Such d ismissal ,however, tends to avoid the issue and tohide problems behind labels whose mean-ing is vague and not terribly helpful. Theresult is that the problems go une xamined.

Let us focus for a moment on one smallsymptom of the problem w e a re attempt-ing to understand, to wit, the rather ob-vious demise of “m anne rs” in th e tw en-tieth century. In some way, the currentlack of concern for good m an ne rs is a re-jection of a Victorian age in which goodmanners were a form of disguise for gen-uine feelings toward others. In such n

age , good form was all; it was the sum andsubstance of our ethical beha vior tow ardone another. And it was a bit of a sham.However, in our preoccupation with“hon esty” toward one an other, in our re-jection of good manners, w e ha ve turnedour backs on something essential whichthe seemingly empty formulae sought toguarantee: nam ely, an aw arene ss of the

248 Summer 985

8/12/2019 Our Hatred of Values-The Aquarian Conspiracy_Hugh Mercer Curtler

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/our-hatred-of-values-the-aquarian-conspiracyhugh-mercer-curtler 8/8

Other as one toward whom respect an dcourtesy are owed.

Ortega y Casset has noted thatcivilization is “above all else the will to

live in com mon ,” and the rejection of theem pty formulae of Victorian m ann ers , an dof good manne rs generally, is a sign of thenarcissism we have noted throughout thisessay. O ne needn’t insist that it is anythingmore than a sign, but it is certainlynothing less.

One might nit-pick about whether itmakes any fundamental differen ce to thepreservation of civilization an d culturewhether a person eats with his fork orhis hands, whether we interrupt oneano the r, or whether w e open doors forone another. In themselves these actionsa re trivial, but as evid enc e of anaw arenes s of others, their loss ev iden cesprecise ly that loss of a sen se of the O therwhich we are discussing. In a word, wemust consider the loss of m an ne rs and

“good form” as symptom s of our contem -

‘Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy LosAngeles, 1983 . 2Robert O rnstein, The Mind FieldNew York, 1976 , pp. 34-35. 3Ferguson, pp. 86-87.

41bid. p. 131. Th ere is something to be said for “deadphilosophies and o ld science” after all: they allow usto recognize nonsense when we see it and to in-crease rather than to erase our fragile human

powers of discrimination. Vbid . p. 329. 60rnstein , p.49. ’ /bid.See also Arthur Koestler’s interesting com-ments about the futility of attempting to adaptEastern, specifically Zen, thinking to Western prob-

lems. “The great Zen masters were, after all, sageswith a shrewd knowledge of character; they knewthat the cosmic nihilism of their doctrine was likearsenic n small doses a stimulant, in large do sespoison. Their wisdom found an unexpected confir-mation several centuries later when Zen was ex-ported overseas and let loose among intellectualswith a decidedly nonConfucian background. They

pora ry disease: tha t inversion of contem-pora ry consciousness which the poetsha ve bee n describing for the grea ter partof this century.

Th e “fundam ental laws of hum anequilibrium” of wh ich Stravinsky speaksa t the outset of this paper require tha thuman beings include in their con-sciousness of the world Other Persons,wh o a re autonomo us and worthy ofrespect in their own right; they requirethat huma n consciousness include in itsworld featu res and aspects of the worldtha t a r e not of their own making; they re-quire that human beings acknowledgetheir own limitations an d their ignorance,that they reason together in a sometimesfutile attempt to adjudicate their dif-ferences and resolve their conflicts. Ourpreva iling ha tre d of objective values is, inthe end, nothing less than an attempt todestro y our sens e of equilibrium an d torestrict conte mp orary consciousness in away that bodes ill for Wes tern civilization.

tried hard to o bey its com ma nd ‘Let your mind goand become like a ball in a mountain stream’; theresult was a punctured tennis ball surrounded bygarbage, bouncing down the current from a burstwater main.” More to the point, perhaps, Koestlernotes that: “Mankind is facing its most deadlypredicament since it climbed down from the trees;

but o ne is reluctantly brought to the conclusion thatneither Yoga, Zen, nor any other Asian form ofmysticism has any significant advice to offer.” TheLotus and the Robot New York, 1960 , pp. 271 and282, respectively. BFerguson, p. 98. gOrnstein, p. 129.loHarvey Cox, The SecularCity New York, 1965 , p.28. Illbid. p. 30. ‘2lbid. 13N. L af ford , When in R omeNew York, 1983 , p. 116. 14EEliseo Vivas, The Moral

Life and the Ethical Life Chicago, 1950 , p. 216.V b i d . l6Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional ManBoston, 1964 , p. 245.