Glenn called it 100% when he said this is "apocalyptic talk." McKenna's whole shtick was that we're approaching what he called "the strange attractor" or "hyper-dimensional object at the end of time." The idea was to put the mainstream view of the history of the universe on its head, and to say that we're being pulled into something incomprehensible that awaits in the future, rather than living out the consequences of something incomprehensible (the Big Bang) that happened in the past. He saw the apocalyptic myths present in most cultures as intuitions about this state of affairs. He even went so far as to predict that we would encounter this strange attractor in 2012 (which was such an outlandish claim that I often feel that part of its function was to make sure that people didn't take him too seriously—he had great humor about it).
But when it comes to conspiracy theories and the "personification of forces that are perhaps very impersonal," I think, in this case, it was just a provocative, playful way to state his point. (The point being that the protest movements of the 60s benefited from the kind of higher education he had received, and that the consequent commercialization of higher ed was a part of a backlash against that counterculture.)
"...And this to me is the clue to understanding something that is personally fascinating to me. It revolves around why people believe such weird things.
(Laughter.)
And why, either as a consequence of the approach of the millennium, or the breakdown of traditional values, or the density of electromagnetic radiation, or for some reason, a balkanization of epistemology is taking place.
And what I mean by that is there is no longer a commonality of understanding.
I mean, for some people, quantum physics provides the answers. Their next-door neighbor may look to the channeling of arch-angels with equal fervor. I mean, if this is not a balkanization of epistemology, I don't know what it is.
It is accompanied by a related phenomenon, which is: technology, or the historical momentum of things, is creating such a bewildering social milieu that the monkey mind cannot find a simple story, a simple creation myth (or redemption myth), to lay over the crazy contradictory patchwork of profane techno-consumerist, post-McLuhanist, electronic pre-apocalyptic existence.
And so into that dimension of anxiety, created by this inability to parse reality, rushes a bewildering variety of squirrely notions…
(Laughter.)
Epistemological cartoons, if you will.
And conspiracy theory, in my humble opinion — I'm somewhat immune to paranoia, so those of you who aren't, you know, gaze in wonder…
(Laughter.)
Conspiracy theory is a kind of epistemological cartoon about reality.
I mean, isn't it so simple to believe that things are run by the Grays, and that all we have to do is trade sufficient fetal tissue to them, and we can solve our technological problems? Or isn't it comforting to believe that the Jews are behind everything, or the Communist Party, or the Catholic Church, or the Masons?
Well, these are epistemological cartoons. It's kindergarten stuff in the art of amateur historiography.
I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying. That the real truth that dares not speak itself is that no-one is in control.
(Laughter.)
Absolutely no one. You know, you don't understand Monica, you don't understand Netanyahu? It's because nobody is in control.
This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos.
Now, there may be entities seeking control — the World Bank, the Communist Party, the rich, somebody other — but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. Because this process that is underway will take the control freak by the short and curly and throw them against the wall.
I have listened to McKenna audio a handful of times over the years on YouTube. Never listened too closely; always classified him as a "new age-y" type of crank. And in full disclosure, it may be because the half dozen times I ate mushrooms or took ecstasy when I was in my early 20s, I never had an enjoyable experience. Maybe that was because I used it as a party drug, and all the people hanging around started to get on my nerves.
With that said, Nikita, I think you did a great job of framing the critiques of both the right and the left as it relates to higher education. And I will tell you that both critiques are fairly accurate. When I was at a second tier university in California in the '90s, I encountered the types of people that both the right and the left would lampoon. I knew rich kids who had a completely consumerist attitude toward their education. They were at university to have a good time, play intramural sports, hang out at the frat party, meet a girl, etc., knowing that a job at daddies' company awaited for them upon graduation. Learning anything was secondary to getting a credential that would help them in the marketplace, and they expected to have a great time while doing it. There were also the social justice types back then, who were heavily encouraged by the faculty, who wanted to drive social change even as they drove the late model BMWs that their parents bought them. At the end of the day, this type, rather than going into their daddies' business, ended up solidly middle class by working for a non-profit, in the education sector, etc.
Fast forward now, and I'm in my mid to late forties. My friendship group consists of mostly heterosexual couples with kids ranging in age from let's say 8 to 16. So everyone is starting to think about college for their kids. And the ones who are on the farther left seem to want their kids exposed to the antiracism you find as college campuses, but to the extent to which their son/daughter still acquires a credential to the middle class. The more centrist (no one would identify themselves as "right") folks see the "woke" elements of the college experience as a mildly irritating inconvenience that one must put up with while pursuing that same credential. What both groups have in common is the consumerist approach to higher education. I am paying so that my kid can have their credential that leads to the middle class. As Glenn alluded to, having state of the art dorms, swimming facilities, dining halls, etc., are, for these people, among the most important elements when committing to a college.
So if were to have to take a side on this, I would argue that the left's critique is probably more accurate. The consumerist, get a credential as a ticket to the middle class approach to education is probably most prevalent. A few parents may believe all of the woke nonsense their kids will invariably encounter. Other middle class parents see it as an irritating part of the system that must be coped with to get to the other side of the college degree. Either way, both sets of parents primarily view university as an instrumental end to the middle or upper middle class.
A couple of side notes:
Glenn called it 100% when he said this is "apocalyptic talk." McKenna's whole shtick was that we're approaching what he called "the strange attractor" or "hyper-dimensional object at the end of time." The idea was to put the mainstream view of the history of the universe on its head, and to say that we're being pulled into something incomprehensible that awaits in the future, rather than living out the consequences of something incomprehensible (the Big Bang) that happened in the past. He saw the apocalyptic myths present in most cultures as intuitions about this state of affairs. He even went so far as to predict that we would encounter this strange attractor in 2012 (which was such an outlandish claim that I often feel that part of its function was to make sure that people didn't take him too seriously—he had great humor about it).
But when it comes to conspiracy theories and the "personification of forces that are perhaps very impersonal," I think, in this case, it was just a provocative, playful way to state his point. (The point being that the protest movements of the 60s benefited from the kind of higher education he had received, and that the consequent commercialization of higher ed was a part of a backlash against that counterculture.)
The reason I say this is McKenna often made fun of conspiracy theories and maintained that "no-one is in control." I recently posted a transcript on that from one of his talks over at Psychopolitica: https://psychopolitica.substack.com/p/a-bewildering-variety-of-squirrely
The relevant bit:
"...And this to me is the clue to understanding something that is personally fascinating to me. It revolves around why people believe such weird things.
(Laughter.)
And why, either as a consequence of the approach of the millennium, or the breakdown of traditional values, or the density of electromagnetic radiation, or for some reason, a balkanization of epistemology is taking place.
And what I mean by that is there is no longer a commonality of understanding.
I mean, for some people, quantum physics provides the answers. Their next-door neighbor may look to the channeling of arch-angels with equal fervor. I mean, if this is not a balkanization of epistemology, I don't know what it is.
It is accompanied by a related phenomenon, which is: technology, or the historical momentum of things, is creating such a bewildering social milieu that the monkey mind cannot find a simple story, a simple creation myth (or redemption myth), to lay over the crazy contradictory patchwork of profane techno-consumerist, post-McLuhanist, electronic pre-apocalyptic existence.
And so into that dimension of anxiety, created by this inability to parse reality, rushes a bewildering variety of squirrely notions…
(Laughter.)
Epistemological cartoons, if you will.
And conspiracy theory, in my humble opinion — I'm somewhat immune to paranoia, so those of you who aren't, you know, gaze in wonder…
(Laughter.)
Conspiracy theory is a kind of epistemological cartoon about reality.
I mean, isn't it so simple to believe that things are run by the Grays, and that all we have to do is trade sufficient fetal tissue to them, and we can solve our technological problems? Or isn't it comforting to believe that the Jews are behind everything, or the Communist Party, or the Catholic Church, or the Masons?
Well, these are epistemological cartoons. It's kindergarten stuff in the art of amateur historiography.
I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying. That the real truth that dares not speak itself is that no-one is in control.
(Laughter.)
Absolutely no one. You know, you don't understand Monica, you don't understand Netanyahu? It's because nobody is in control.
This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos.
Now, there may be entities seeking control — the World Bank, the Communist Party, the rich, somebody other — but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. Because this process that is underway will take the control freak by the short and curly and throw them against the wall.
(Laughter.)
It's like trying to control a dream, you see."
I have listened to McKenna audio a handful of times over the years on YouTube. Never listened too closely; always classified him as a "new age-y" type of crank. And in full disclosure, it may be because the half dozen times I ate mushrooms or took ecstasy when I was in my early 20s, I never had an enjoyable experience. Maybe that was because I used it as a party drug, and all the people hanging around started to get on my nerves.
With that said, Nikita, I think you did a great job of framing the critiques of both the right and the left as it relates to higher education. And I will tell you that both critiques are fairly accurate. When I was at a second tier university in California in the '90s, I encountered the types of people that both the right and the left would lampoon. I knew rich kids who had a completely consumerist attitude toward their education. They were at university to have a good time, play intramural sports, hang out at the frat party, meet a girl, etc., knowing that a job at daddies' company awaited for them upon graduation. Learning anything was secondary to getting a credential that would help them in the marketplace, and they expected to have a great time while doing it. There were also the social justice types back then, who were heavily encouraged by the faculty, who wanted to drive social change even as they drove the late model BMWs that their parents bought them. At the end of the day, this type, rather than going into their daddies' business, ended up solidly middle class by working for a non-profit, in the education sector, etc.
Fast forward now, and I'm in my mid to late forties. My friendship group consists of mostly heterosexual couples with kids ranging in age from let's say 8 to 16. So everyone is starting to think about college for their kids. And the ones who are on the farther left seem to want their kids exposed to the antiracism you find as college campuses, but to the extent to which their son/daughter still acquires a credential to the middle class. The more centrist (no one would identify themselves as "right") folks see the "woke" elements of the college experience as a mildly irritating inconvenience that one must put up with while pursuing that same credential. What both groups have in common is the consumerist approach to higher education. I am paying so that my kid can have their credential that leads to the middle class. As Glenn alluded to, having state of the art dorms, swimming facilities, dining halls, etc., are, for these people, among the most important elements when committing to a college.
So if were to have to take a side on this, I would argue that the left's critique is probably more accurate. The consumerist, get a credential as a ticket to the middle class approach to education is probably most prevalent. A few parents may believe all of the woke nonsense their kids will invariably encounter. Other middle class parents see it as an irritating part of the system that must be coped with to get to the other side of the college degree. Either way, both sets of parents primarily view university as an instrumental end to the middle or upper middle class.