I'm not sure I follow much of what you are saying here. Maybe I need to go away and sleep on it.
Then again, it's hard to answer comments on your memory of another thread... One thing about "1984" is that the Party are, I think interestingly, powerless. They never let *anyone* who commits thoughtcrime go free, they are always "cured" and then executed. This means the Party is simply a machine that follows this pattern, with no choice in the matter. On 18 March 2014 17:15, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:43:58 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >> >> >> On Monday, March 17, 2014 11:37:36 PM UTC, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> On 18 March 2014 05:01, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, to get on track, we would need to assert trade offs, fixes, and >>>> solutions, rather than promote mere complaint. This goes for myself, but >>>> few seem to feel this way. If we want a clean green Earth, then problem >>>> solving is essential. In that attempt to problem solve, we may come up with >>>> a decent idea, or promote one we have heard of. >>>> >>> >>> That is exactly how I feel about it. However I suspect that your rants >>> about how [insert special interest group here] are a bunch of [insert >>> despised political group here] planning to create a [insert feared >>> political system here] may not have helped people appreciate that this is >>> your position. >>> >> >> What's interesting about the way you write this as a fill-the-blanks >> template, is the question of how close your template comes to ubiquity in >> terms of total-humans/humans-filtering-the-world-through-lizzies- >> templatee >> >> At least partially filtering through the template anyway. Keeping >> meaningfulness by requiring instances of whole template usage, not partial. >> >> Staying with that measure, a further question would be how much more >> closely does your template define the contemporary era than others in >> history? Then, defining each era in terms of how much your template >> captures it, what does history look like on those terms? Does it tell a >> coherent story? Like, are there lizzie template spikes at the major >> milestones, like the French Revolution, or the Bolshevik Takeover of >> Russia, or during the Cold War. Would that template alone be enough to >> define every historical period sufficiently that each one, say, had its own >> distinctive template usage character. >> >> For example the Cold War might feature massive usage, but with everything >> breaking down into two templates in most common use. One for soviet and the >> other for American sympathy. Bolshevik could also be largely broken into >> two, one involving, say, the bourgeoisie or something. French Revolution >> might pair around 'aristocracy'. >> >> Thinking about it, could not the emergent pattern from history be that >> there is generally a reactionary and revolutionary template? A template for >> the incumbent and for would-be nemesis. Or in time, of the power that ruled >> in time going backwards and power that rules in time going >> forwards...around some point. The cold war template would kind of break >> into four..two each for East and West, such that both represent both >> positions. >> >> But does the contemporary situation fit the historical pattern? It seems >> vastly more complex to me. In all the other instances, there was major >> backing for the template...two elites, or one elite and one would-be elite, >> would be ultimate backers of one of the two mirroring templates. >> >> Everyone pretty much knew who the elites were. At least that could be >> said. Do we know now? What would the template usage say, keeping with the >> idea of that being the only information allowed to define history. Would >> the template usage that said knowledge of elites was fairly strong, show a >> division about two ways? That'd fit with historical situation. What about >> now? >> >> Fair enough history must have had some outlying daft theories like now, >> so let's elimate those. Also control for the information revolution and the >> extents, then, of templates becoming more complex due to people being >> influenced online. >> >> One way to do this would be to select a sample of the most mainstream >> template. Surely most of us have some experience of the mainstream. Either >> we're moving in the direction of it, or moving the other way. But generally >> we know something about it. Does the mainsteam template know who our elites >> are right now? Do you? Do people even here in this thread agree on this >> question? How many different views on this are here alone? >> >> It's a world of infinite infinities, bocktime multiverses, endless >> potentials and exponentially growing optimism...where to say otherwise is >> literally bad philosophy by definition. There is even the suggestion that >> elites cannot exist at all...not cohersive ones anyway..,that to say >> otherwise is bad philosophy too (i.e. Deutsch). >> >> Maybe that's a reason why no one knows. Because no such thing exists. >> Maybe the reason fewer and fewer people talk about such a thing as an >> incumbent elite. Fewer news references, fewer political references, fewer >> scientific references...maybe as the spread of good philosophy all such >> talk fades out of all mainstream template usage. Maybe this era defines a >> big template usage divide, a pairing, after all. Mention of Elites. One >> side convergent to 'never' the other divergent to cacophonic chaotic >> confusion. So in a way both sides amounting to "never". One side literal, >> the other side useful information. >> > > As an after thought I was just reminded of an early thread I looked at but > didn't comment in. I don't remember everyone that did, but I do remember > that you - I think - and John were major contributors, or stuck out for > me. It was about George Orwell, his "1984" novel I think > > I think the agreement was in terms of his genius. I remember this much > because the what was most brilliant seemed to be in the 'devices and > gadgetry' department, talking/spying television boxes; psychological > devices toward the end of believing, really believing, in something you had > believed against. And the opposite of that belief too as "doublethink". As > "thought-crimes". > > At the time I was struck two ways. Firstly, that if this is the root of > the ingredient of genius, then Orwell was either not a socialist > which actually he was. Or Orwell was not talking about the perils of > socialism which actually he was. > > Sort of like a contradiction or a paradox. How can you criticize what you > believe in so ferociously without reference to what you don't believe in? > So then there's the theory he was talking about Totalitarianism as a > solution to that. The way all 'isms' meeting round the back in the middle, > in a big all connected circle. > > Which is a theory, but for me....going back to when I read it.....that > didn't work. Because like the 'devices and gadgetries' explanation, on that > reading - of totalitarianism - it wasn't particularly new or ingenious what > he was saying at all. > > Yet for sure that was something brilliant and something brand new and > unique in Orwell's 1984. For me anyway.....I thought the 'devices and > gadgets' and the 'extremes of socialism' and the 'nature of > totalitarianism' were all true, but all just layers. In terms of 'genius' > anyway all of them discountable. For genius requires something to be said > about something much more intrinsic and ubiquitously affecting...more to > the heart of human nature, human society, human past human future. > > I thought it was the nature of Power. I thought he was breaking new ground > in defining the Nature of Power for All Times. I thought the genius of the > devices and gadgets was that they were all and each metaphors for a > specific key dimension of Eternal Power. > > Another curiousity about that thread was no one asked the question, > whether and to what extent any of those devices and gadgets are in > play...not affecting other people because your 'template' already puts paid > to the usefulness of that (everyone can see how it affects someone else). > But affecting us personally. You, John...each of us. Question that would > have been, would be "would we know?". Would we know. Would we want to know? > Would we prefer double think. Would we be the hero or everyone else? > > The genius of Orwell - I think - was that he wrote a book about Power as > it really is. The measure of his genius was not in the eyes of the > beholders that read his book. Or the critic. But more like > Art...existential art. The genius of being so right about something, as to > be existentially reflective of that thing. That the ability of people to > see through the layers to that real thing, was not determined by their > intellect or his writing anymore at all. But by the properties of that > existential thing he was describing. The properties, in this case, of > Power. > > The prediction then, based on the properties he defined, would be that the > extent we get it, this is about power, is inversely proportionate to the > extent such power exists right here right now in our day. > >> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
