pg 17ish - "Whereas, if they'd started on moral education," said the Director, leading the way towards the door. The students followed him, desperately scribbling as they walked and all the way up in the lift. "Moral education, which ought never, in any circumstances, to be rational."
I am unsure what the message is at this point. -
Is Huxley saying that morality is something that is contrived to control the masses? That its something that is fundamentally irratonal?
Or is he saying that to get in there and really control someone you have subvert their innate morality?
This passage is the Director's response to a student who asks of the advantages of Bokanovsky's Process...
---------------------------------------------- "My good boy!" The Director wheeled sharply round on him. "Can't you see? Can't you see?" He raised a hand; his expression was solemn. "Bokanovsky's Process is one of the major instruments of social stability!"
Major instruments of social stability. (Students brainlessly scribble this in their notepads.)
Standard men and women; in uniform batches. The whole of a small factory staffed with the products of a single bokanovskified egg.
"Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines!" The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. "You really know where you are. For the first time in history." He quoted the planetary motto, "Community, Identity, Stability." Grand words. "If we could Bokanovskify indefinitely the whole problem would be solved." ---------------------------------------------- I was blown away by the visual, especially thinking that this is coming from a mind in 1932, of 96 identical twins at 96 identical machines. Individuality is obviously erased because if we are talking genetically engineered twins, they do not just look the same, every gene in that double helix is copied!!! Then he says "You really know who you are!!!" Well, of course because everyone you work with IS you. But you are not you, you have no individuality. I think the irony is stunning. Bravo.
We are here introduced to the mantra of the state, "Community, Identity, Stability". And then he states that if they could somehow take the limits off the Bokanovsky process and replicate a world of twins our problems would be solved. Well, director = dictator possibly? He is thinking in the context of controlling society.
Think about the government right now, if they were genetically replicating republican sycophantic morons and time releasing them into the public to dumb down the gene pool. Then eventually we would be so easy to control.
This passage is one of the most chilling openings ever in a book in my opinion.
I am glad Meghin brought attention to the passage she brought up.
I think there is a great philosophical question broached there. This is occurring after the Pavlovian Conditioning scene where babies are being groomed to hate flowers and books. Then, the Director is talking about getting kids to remember the Nile being the longest river in their sleep but it does not work. Because intelligence is rational and you really cannot brainwash people that 2 + 2 = 5 because intelligence needs an understanding behind it. That's why Winston gets the shit beat out of him in the book 1984.
Morality on the other hand, is the foundation on which everything you will learn in the future is to be based on.
So in response to Meghin's perfectly worded puzzlement in her entry: --------- I am unsure what the message is at this point. -
Is Huxley saying that morality is something that is contrived to control the masses? That its something that is fundamentally irratonal?
Or is he saying that to get in there and really control someone you have subvert their innate morality? ------
I think Huxley is saying all of this at the same time. Think about church, marriage, heterosexuality, monogamy, and social niceties in general. All of these are rules made up by man to control "morality". Are we by nature monogamous? I have been taught that since I was born and I have never thought of it any other way until I realized I had a mind of my own.
It's like nowadays I will talk to people and we will argue about Guantanimo Bay being good or bad. And we will argue until our faces turn red. Then I ask them, is an American life worth more than a Middle Eastern's? And they say yes.
Now, how are we supposed to come to an agreement anywhere in our argument if one person has been coded to believe that an American life is worth more than any other countyman's life, while another person sees that life = life?
So, back to the morality question, myself and this person I am arguing with have no idea why our moral boundaries lie where they do, but because of that difference in our basic belief, everything that builds on top of that dictates how we see reality.
So, if you can control someones moral boundaries, they will not know why their morals are what they are, yet they will defend it with all of their heart. So it is irrational in a sense, but they will build up rationalities to protect it.
There are a couple of passages that were particularly provocative for me:
(1) "Essentially," the D.H.C. concluded, "bokanovskification (a great word by the way) consists of a series of arrests of development. We check the normal growth and, paradoxically enough, the egg responds by budding" (bottom of page 4)
(2)From this point onwards Rack 9 was enclosed and the bottles performed the remainder of their journey in a kind of tunnel, interrupted here and there by openings two or three metres wide. "Heat conditioning," said Mr. Foster Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels...By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold. (p 14-15)
(3) The last passage I would like to point to is the conditioning process of the Deltas that reinforced a fear of books and flowers.
-----------------------------------
There were a couple of things that I found interesting about these passages. When speaking about the Bokanovsky Process, I was struck by the way the Director described the process as a series of arrests of development. While we normally think of arrested development as a bad thing, in terms of the Bokanovsky Process, it is actually a good thing; it results in the further subdivision of the egg. Is Huxley saying that the natural development of the individual and society more generally produces a negative result?
The last two passages that I referenced really made me think about dilemmas associated with democracy. Democracy is slow inefficient process that does not always yield the best result. Considering the myriad of social problems, including inequality of wealth distribution and the state of the environment, would we be better off if we lived in a socially engineered society where some of those decisions where made for us from above (especially if scientific conditioning could assure that we would be happy)? Do we really need all of the choices that we have with regard to commercial consumption and government?
I think the Director's goal is to defy the current limits of the Bokanovsky Process so that the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre could make the fertilization and incubation process more efficient. Almost everything that the Director and Mr. Foster talk about comes down to efficiency (Mr. Foster knows virtually all of the measurements and statistics associated with cultivation process). But, while the twins are identical genetically (again for the sake of efficiency; the LHCC has figured out the ideal amount of genetic diversity that we need in the gene pool), each batch of twins can be manipulated though the use external stimuli and conditioning. The individual's role in society is manufactured by science....Nature vs. nurture.
I agree with Mr. Schapiro's interpretation about the passage on morality. Morality is largely innate and it is, for the most part, fairly well established by the time you are 6 or 7 years old, especially if those moral values/justifications are reinforced by society.
I think Huxley is making a statement. In order to control people's behavior, you must first be able to control their sense of right and wrong. While it would be easier to manipulate this system of morality in youngsters, it is also possible to alter this sense in adults (think about the way Jews were treated by people in Nazi Germany or ostracized peoples in communist dictatorships.
Well, this is Patrick, a friend of Jared’s. I’m excited to be part of this group and sorry I’m a little late joining. In full disclosure, I read this book back in high school for a book report (wow that statement takes me back) but I’m a bit tainted because of the conscious and sub-conscious memories of this book. Most are sub-conscious for sure but I vaguely remember where the story heads. I’ll try not to jump ahead with some of my comments.
Some of the passages already quoted were also intriguing for me but when I went back to my notes two passages together jumped out at me (one on pg. 4 and one on pg. 16)
_______________________________________________
Pg 4: The D.H.C. speaking to his students:
“Just to give you a general idea,” he would explain to them. For of course some sort of general idea they must have, if they were to do their work intelligently---though as little of one, if they were to be good and happy members of society, as possible. For particulars, as everyone knows, make for virtue and happiness; generalities are intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but fretswayers and stamp collectors compose the backbone of society.
“To-morrow,” he would add, smiling at them with a slightly menacing geniality, “you’ll be settling down to serious work. You won’t have time for generalities. Meanwhile…”
And
Pg 16: “And that,” put in the Director sententiously, “that is the secret of happiness and virtue-liking what you’ve got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny.”
________________________________________________
Ok, maybe I bit off more than I could chew in my first posting (have a lot of ideas floating around here). I’ll try to make this somewhat coherent but I think Huxley put this at the beginning of the book because it reflects his own personal “generalities” and “conditioning” that I would guess he received as young boy growing up in England in the early 1900’s. Those being the puritan virtues of hard work, reverence, and blind faith. The ideas that “fretswayers” are the backbone of society not the philosophers, thinkers, or writers. Is he questioning his own worth or challenging his society’s values?
I think it might be a mix of both. I think this might reflect his own internal struggle, and that struggle we all feel sometimes, between what we “must do” and what we “wish to do.” Because in every society, (be it democratic, totalitarian, capitalist, socialist, theocratic or communist) the hard work of farming, building, cleaning, etc. has to be done. But who gets to choose what we do with our lives? God? Government? Me? Are we destined for certain lives or do we get to choose? Are certain “types” of people better suited for certain jobs and tasks?
Considering Huxley wrote this book in the 1930’s I would venture to guess that not only did the shock of the industrial revolution influence this thinking but so did the rise of communist and fascist dictators in Europe. He even refers to a “World State” in the first sentence of the book. With the benefit of hindsight we are able to see the sins of certain society’s but how would we have reacted if we lived back then? Would we have choosen the “right” side according to history? I think when writing this he might have been having the same internal dialogue that we are having here:
What is morality and who decides it? Is morality just mind control or a “necessary evil” upon which a society is built? Is it so bad if the State completely controls and decides that morality, so long as everything runs smoothly and efficiently?
Samson, I think it’s an interesting observation you make about democracy. I would agree that it’s definitely not efficient. But is efficiency in all aspects of life the overriding goal of a government? What is sacrificed by a society to achieve that efficiency?
----------------------- Patrick said: What is morality and who decides it? Is morality just mind control or a “necessary evil” upon which a society is built? Is it so bad if the State completely controls and decides that morality, so long as everything runs smoothly and efficiently?
------------------------- Especially after speaking to people who are uneducated, ill informed (in my eyes), prejudiced, biased by social class, or what have you, I often wonder if it IS a benefit that all citizens have a say in government. For instance, I have heard many-a-men say George W. Bush will go down as the greatest president ever! (I live in Texas.)
Am I allowed to argue with myself on a previous comment? Not now, but possibly in the future.
Anywho, the 96 identical twins at 96 identical machines makes me think of the old "man vs machine" theme. I mean when science gets that advanced, our bodies won't seem like such amazing creations anymore. Just like you tune a car, you can tweak a test tube. I call it Science and Religion Vs Mystery. The more and more "answers" we find or the more and more faith you have, the less and less mystery and wonderment there is. This wonderment is what I feel is the substance of life. For governing masses, this vision may be plausible to have your social destiny predetermined, kind of like the argument Patrick brings up about keeping things running smoothly. But for the human condition it is ultimately a soul crusher. I believe in creativity.
Kurt Vonnegut always talks about man being robotic and he refers to the brain as "wires". We are machines with predictable input-output mappings much of the time. But when a drop of spontaneity is in the mixture, I feel more alive.
I like Patrick's point about Huxley questioning his Puritan upbringing. Now...I'm curious how prevalent those mores and values were in early 20th century England. I guess you could argue that they will always be a part of English and American culture.
As for my comment on efficiency vs. democracy, I was just trying to play devil's advocate. I would assume that most people would rather have the freedom to decide their fate. I just think it is interesting to consider the side-effects of that freedom and to question whether it would be possible (especially in Huxley's world) to better manage societies and their impact on the earth (think China's one-child policy). I think Mr. Schapiro also gets at this idea when he questions whether some people are too uneducated or ill-informed to make a meaningful contribution to democracy.
Pat's comment speculating on Huxley's view of totalitarianism is also very interesting.
Responding to Mr. Schapiro...and seeing that I know 2 Mr. Schapiros that live in Texas I’m not sure which one I’m talking to here…but I guess that’s the beauty of the internet…anonymity ;)
So who decides who gets to have a say? I think your statement of "in my eyes" is very telling. To bring it back to the book, in the "eyes" of the Director he's doing the "right" thing.
"It was decided to abolish the love of nature, at any rate among the lower classes; to abolish the love of nature, but not the tendency to consume transport" (pg. 22). - I found this particular sentence fascinating and thought how many lower class members of American society get to truly appreciate the beauty of nature. Even many middle class Americans have too many things going on to just stop and enjoy the beauty of nature....Instead of our more historically appropriate relationships...(man with nature) we have witness our relationship change into (man with consumption)....
As for Meghin's passage g 17ish - "Whereas, if they'd started on moral education," said the Director, leading the way towards the door. The students followed him, desperately scribbling as they walked and all the way up in the lift. "Moral education, which ought never, in any circumstances, to be rational."
I believe Huxley is talking about how important is in in the establishment of guilt (according to Freud) to form an extremely harsh super-ego that is created by the Father and later societal norms. In other words, if society is extremely irrational when teaching "moral education," than the intrinsic nature of the superego will eventually cause the person to "police" him or herself with harshest of consequences.
Think about the government right now, if they were genetically replicating republican sycophantic morons and time releasing them into the public to dumb down the gene pool. Then eventually we would be so easy to control.
This passage is one of the most chilling openings ever in a book in my opinion.
You may have begun to illustrate how chilling the opening is in your previous paragraph.
The difference is simply this...you don't need to genetically create republican sycophants when you can make democratic sycophants believe they have a choice...so, as you illustrated....one may begin to scream about republicans (or democrats) while moving file in rank towards the same unchangeable outcome...tyranny.
Basically through a "socially" created intelligence illusion (with the help of Pavlovian conditioning) we no longer can see that the foundation that we stand on was false from its onset. -Johnson
pg 17ish - "Whereas, if they'd started on moral education," said the Director, leading the way towards the door. The students followed him, desperately scribbling as they walked and all the way up in the lift. "Moral education, which ought never, in any circumstances, to be rational."
ReplyDeleteI am unsure what the message is at this point. -
Is Huxley saying that morality is something that is contrived to control the masses? That its something that is fundamentally irratonal?
Or is he saying that to get in there and really control someone you have subvert their innate morality?
This passage is the Director's response to a student who asks of the advantages of Bokanovsky's Process...
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------------
"My good boy!" The Director wheeled sharply round on him. "Can't you see? Can't you see?" He raised a hand; his expression was solemn. "Bokanovsky's Process is one of the major instruments of social stability!"
Major instruments of social stability. (Students brainlessly scribble this in their notepads.)
Standard men and women; in uniform batches. The whole of a small factory staffed with the products of a single bokanovskified egg.
"Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines!" The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. "You really know where you are. For the first time in history." He quoted the planetary motto, "Community, Identity, Stability." Grand words. "If we could Bokanovskify indefinitely the whole problem would be solved."
----------------------------------------------
I was blown away by the visual, especially thinking that this is coming from a mind in 1932, of 96 identical twins at 96 identical machines. Individuality is obviously erased because if we are talking genetically engineered twins, they do not just look the same, every gene in that double helix is copied!!! Then he says "You really know who you are!!!" Well, of course because everyone you work with IS you. But you are not you, you have no individuality. I think the irony is stunning. Bravo.
We are here introduced to the mantra of the state, "Community, Identity, Stability". And then he states that if they could somehow take the limits off the Bokanovsky process and replicate a world of twins our problems would be solved. Well, director = dictator possibly? He is thinking in the context of controlling society.
Think about the government right now, if they were genetically replicating republican sycophantic morons and time releasing them into the public to dumb down the gene pool. Then eventually we would be so easy to control.
This passage is one of the most chilling openings ever in a book in my opinion.
I am glad Meghin brought attention to the passage she brought up.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a great philosophical question broached there. This is occurring after the Pavlovian Conditioning scene where babies are being groomed to hate flowers and books. Then, the Director is talking about getting kids to remember the Nile being the longest river in their sleep but it does not work. Because intelligence is rational and you really cannot brainwash people that 2 + 2 = 5 because intelligence needs an understanding behind it. That's why Winston gets the shit beat out of him in the book 1984.
Morality on the other hand, is the foundation on which everything you will learn in the future is to be based on.
So in response to Meghin's perfectly worded puzzlement in her entry:
---------
I am unsure what the message is at this point. -
Is Huxley saying that morality is something that is contrived to control the masses? That its something that is fundamentally irratonal?
Or is he saying that to get in there and really control someone you have subvert their innate morality?
------
I think Huxley is saying all of this at the same time. Think about church, marriage, heterosexuality, monogamy, and social niceties in general. All of these are rules made up by man to control "morality". Are we by nature monogamous? I have been taught that since I was born and I have never thought of it any other way until I realized I had a mind of my own.
It's like nowadays I will talk to people and we will argue about Guantanimo Bay being good or bad. And we will argue until our faces turn red. Then I ask them, is an American life worth more than a Middle Eastern's? And they say yes.
Now, how are we supposed to come to an agreement anywhere in our argument if one person has been coded to believe that an American life is worth more than any other countyman's life, while another person sees that life = life?
So, back to the morality question, myself and this person I am arguing with have no idea why our moral boundaries lie where they do, but because of that difference in our basic belief, everything that builds on top of that dictates how we see reality.
So, if you can control someones moral boundaries, they will not know why their morals are what they are, yet they will defend it with all of their heart. So it is irrational in a sense, but they will build up rationalities to protect it.
Great passage to pick Meghin!
There are a couple of passages that were particularly provocative for me:
ReplyDelete(1) "Essentially," the D.H.C. concluded, "bokanovskification (a great word by the way) consists of a series of arrests of development. We check the normal growth and, paradoxically enough, the egg responds by budding"
(bottom of page 4)
(2)From this point onwards Rack 9 was enclosed and the bottles performed the remainder of their journey in a kind of tunnel, interrupted here and there by openings two or three metres wide.
"Heat conditioning," said Mr. Foster
Hot tunnels alternated with cool tunnels...By the time they were decanted the embryos had a horror of cold.
(p 14-15)
(3) The last passage I would like to point to is the conditioning process of the Deltas that reinforced a fear of books and flowers.
-----------------------------------
There were a couple of things that I found interesting about these passages. When speaking about the Bokanovsky Process, I was struck by the way the Director described the process as a series of arrests of development. While we normally think of arrested development as a bad thing, in terms of the Bokanovsky Process, it is actually a good thing; it results in the further subdivision of the egg. Is Huxley saying that the natural development of the individual and society more generally produces a negative result?
The last two passages that I referenced really made me think about dilemmas associated with democracy. Democracy is slow inefficient process that does not always yield the best result. Considering the myriad of social problems, including inequality of wealth distribution and the state of the environment, would we be better off if we lived in a socially engineered society where some of those decisions where made for us from above (especially if scientific conditioning could assure that we would be happy)? Do we really need all of the choices that we have with regard to commercial consumption and government?
I think the Director's goal is to defy the current limits of the Bokanovsky Process so that the Hatchery and Conditioning Centre could make the fertilization and incubation process more efficient. Almost everything that the Director and Mr. Foster talk about comes down to efficiency (Mr. Foster knows virtually all of the measurements and statistics associated with cultivation process). But, while the twins are identical genetically (again for the sake of efficiency; the LHCC has figured out the ideal amount of genetic diversity that we need in the gene pool), each batch of twins can be manipulated though the use external stimuli and conditioning. The individual's role in society is manufactured by science....Nature vs. nurture.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Schapiro's interpretation about the passage on morality. Morality is largely innate and it is, for the most part, fairly well established by the time you are 6 or 7 years old, especially if those moral values/justifications are reinforced by society.
ReplyDeleteI think Huxley is making a statement. In order to control people's behavior, you must first be able to control their sense of right and wrong. While it would be easier to manipulate this system of morality in youngsters, it is also possible to alter this sense in adults (think about the way Jews were treated by people in Nazi Germany or ostracized peoples in communist dictatorships.
Hi Folks,
ReplyDeleteWell, this is Patrick, a friend of Jared’s. I’m excited to be part of this group and sorry I’m a little late joining. In full disclosure, I read this book back in high school for a book report (wow that statement takes me back) but I’m a bit tainted because of the conscious and sub-conscious memories of this book. Most are sub-conscious for sure but I vaguely remember where the story heads. I’ll try not to jump ahead with some of my comments.
Some of the passages already quoted were also intriguing for me but when I went back to my notes two passages together jumped out at me (one on pg. 4 and one on pg. 16)
_______________________________________________
Pg 4:
The D.H.C. speaking to his students:
“Just to give you a general idea,” he would explain to them. For of course some sort of general idea they must have, if they were to do their work intelligently---though as little of one, if they were to be good and happy members of society, as possible. For particulars, as everyone knows, make for virtue and happiness; generalities are intellectually necessary evils. Not philosophers but fretswayers and stamp collectors compose the backbone of society.
“To-morrow,” he would add, smiling at them with a slightly menacing geniality, “you’ll be settling down to serious work. You won’t have time for generalities. Meanwhile…”
And
Pg 16:
“And that,” put in the Director sententiously, “that is the secret of happiness and virtue-liking what you’ve got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their unescapable social destiny.”
________________________________________________
Ok, maybe I bit off more than I could chew in my first posting (have a lot of ideas floating around here). I’ll try to make this somewhat coherent but I think Huxley put this at the beginning of the book because it reflects his own personal “generalities” and “conditioning” that I would guess he received as young boy growing up in England in the early 1900’s. Those being the puritan virtues of hard work, reverence, and blind faith. The ideas that “fretswayers” are the backbone of society not the philosophers, thinkers, or writers. Is he questioning his own worth or challenging his society’s values?
I think it might be a mix of both. I think this might reflect his own internal struggle, and that struggle we all feel sometimes, between what we “must do” and what we “wish to do.” Because in every society, (be it democratic, totalitarian, capitalist, socialist, theocratic or communist) the hard work of farming, building, cleaning, etc. has to be done. But who gets to choose what we do with our lives? God? Government? Me? Are we destined for certain lives or do we get to choose? Are certain “types” of people better suited for certain jobs and tasks?
Considering Huxley wrote this book in the 1930’s I would venture to guess that not only did the shock of the industrial revolution influence this thinking but so did the rise of communist and fascist dictators in Europe. He even refers to a “World State” in the first sentence of the book. With the benefit of hindsight we are able to see the sins of certain society’s but how would we have reacted if we lived back then? Would we have choosen the “right” side according to history? I think when writing this he might have been having the same internal dialogue that we are having here:
What is morality and who decides it? Is morality just mind control or a “necessary evil” upon which a society is built? Is it so bad if the State completely controls and decides that morality, so long as everything runs smoothly and efficiently?
Samson, I think it’s an interesting observation you make about democracy. I would agree that it’s definitely not efficient. But is efficiency in all aspects of life the overriding goal of a government? What is sacrificed by a society to achieve that efficiency?
Interesting point between Samson and Patrick.
ReplyDelete-----------------------
Patrick said:
What is morality and who decides it? Is morality just mind control or a “necessary evil” upon which a society is built? Is it so bad if the State completely controls and decides that morality, so long as everything runs smoothly and efficiently?
-------------------------
Especially after speaking to people who are uneducated, ill informed (in my eyes), prejudiced, biased by social class, or what have you, I often wonder if it IS a benefit that all citizens have a say in government. For instance, I have heard many-a-men say George W. Bush will go down as the greatest president ever! (I live in Texas.)
Am I allowed to argue with myself on a previous comment? Not now, but possibly in the future.
ReplyDeleteAnywho, the 96 identical twins at 96 identical machines makes me think of the old "man vs machine" theme. I mean when science gets that advanced, our bodies won't seem like such amazing creations anymore. Just like you tune a car, you can tweak a test tube. I call it Science and Religion Vs Mystery. The more and more "answers" we find or the more and more faith you have, the less and less mystery and wonderment there is. This wonderment is what I feel is the substance of life. For governing masses, this vision may be plausible to have your social destiny predetermined, kind of like the argument Patrick brings up about keeping things running smoothly. But for the human condition it is ultimately a soul crusher. I believe in creativity.
Kurt Vonnegut always talks about man being robotic and he refers to the brain as "wires". We are machines with predictable input-output mappings much of the time. But when a drop of spontaneity is in the mixture, I feel more alive.
I like Patrick's point about Huxley questioning his Puritan upbringing. Now...I'm curious how prevalent those mores and values were in early 20th century England. I guess you could argue that they will always be a part of English and American culture.
ReplyDeleteAs for my comment on efficiency vs. democracy, I was just trying to play devil's advocate. I would assume that most people would rather have the freedom to decide their fate. I just think it is interesting to consider the side-effects of that freedom and to question whether it would be possible (especially in Huxley's world) to better manage societies and their impact on the earth (think China's one-child policy). I think Mr. Schapiro also gets at this idea when he questions whether some people are too uneducated or ill-informed to make a meaningful contribution to democracy.
Pat's comment speculating on Huxley's view of totalitarianism is also very interesting.
The blog moderator gives you official permission to argue with or contradict your earlier statements.
ReplyDeleteResponding to Mr. Schapiro...and seeing that I know 2 Mr. Schapiros that live in Texas I’m not sure which one I’m talking to here…but I guess that’s the beauty of the internet…anonymity ;)
ReplyDeleteSo who decides who gets to have a say? I think your statement of "in my eyes" is very telling. To bring it back to the book, in the "eyes" of the Director he's doing the "right" thing.
"It was decided to abolish the love of nature, at any rate among the lower classes; to abolish the love of nature, but not the tendency to consume transport" (pg. 22). - I found this particular sentence fascinating and thought how many lower class members of American society get to truly appreciate the beauty of nature. Even many middle class Americans have too many things going on to just stop and enjoy the beauty of nature....Instead of our more historically appropriate relationships...(man with nature) we have witness our relationship change into (man with consumption)....
ReplyDeleteAs for Meghin's passage g 17ish - "Whereas, if they'd started on moral education," said the Director, leading the way towards the door. The students followed him, desperately scribbling as they walked and all the way up in the lift. "Moral education, which ought never, in any circumstances, to be rational."
I believe Huxley is talking about how important is in in the establishment of guilt (according to Freud) to form an extremely harsh super-ego that is created by the Father and later societal norms. In other words, if society is extremely irrational when teaching "moral education," than the intrinsic nature of the superego will eventually cause the person to "police" him or herself with harshest of consequences.
-Johnson
Response to Mr. Schapiro....
ReplyDeleteThink about the government right now, if they were genetically replicating republican sycophantic morons and time releasing them into the public to dumb down the gene pool. Then eventually we would be so easy to control.
This passage is one of the most chilling openings ever in a book in my opinion.
You may have begun to illustrate how chilling the opening is in your previous paragraph.
The difference is simply this...you don't need to genetically create republican sycophants when you can make democratic sycophants believe they have a choice...so, as you illustrated....one may begin to scream about republicans (or democrats) while moving file in rank towards the same unchangeable outcome...tyranny.
Basically through a "socially" created intelligence illusion (with the help of Pavlovian conditioning) we no longer can see that the foundation that we stand on was false from its onset.
-Johnson
My thoughts exactly Johnson.
ReplyDeletei agree. pray to god for a benevolent leadership.
ReplyDelete