No Subject

[Unregistered]

In the interest of supporting individual thought, I must refrain myself from nominating your opinon as pure hooey. Further, supporting a second interest of mine, namely my own frutition, I will ascribe to myself (for the duration of this reply) the manner of a cheeky fellow. As such, and so considering, I shall draw from the deep depths of my lovely lexicon such terms that even I cannot compleatly comprehend. Verily then, I campaign for your pardons, si placit tibi, and ask that you forgive my verbosity. I am not a prolix writer for self aggrendizement (sp?) alone, but also for mine (and I hope the reader's) own delectation. <br> Returning now, to the validity of your statement:<br><br> "The sterility and absence of individuality that Huxley predicted has <br> ALREADY arrived, in fact has been around since before Huxley <br> was born."<br><br> Reading your statement now, I am giving myself a proverbial slap on the hand. Aformentioned (in my first sentence in fact) is a desire to respect your individual conclusions. However, bacause your thesis lacks any attempts of proof or explaination, I would assume that you believe your statement so much that you think it obvious to any observer. I will not attempt to sway such a strong, stubborn, and steadfast belief, because I do not have the energy to do so. Now, then, I shall assume that your starement is true, and that all individuality has been lost for decades. Here, the reason for which I have so violently beaten myself about the hand shows itself. If there is no individuality, then I have no pliable reason to respect your individual thoughts. Perhaps I should wage an all out attack on the intellegence of your idea, completly ignoring individualism. Perhaps I should become a drone myself, a devotee to the one idea all of de-humanity considers true (for they cannot have any or their own individual thoughts, can they?). Perhaps I should suggest that I am obviously an individual, and you are obviously an individual, because of our individual responses to Brave New World. Perhaps not. Perhaps I should stop at advising you to support your arguments with some sort of anything in the future.

[Tom]

That, my friend, was certainly one of the most impressive messages I've ever seen around here. Congratulations indeed.

[Unregistered]

It's 1 person in general, not the entire population. I believe people existed in Huxley's time could easily be related to characters in the novel. Not to the extent of all the conditioning and artificial growth, but just the way people can act. Prostitutes are a good example of this. I think all that text was a waste of reading time, but for 'Bernard', in a way was right.

[Unregistered]

you want to read george orwell, you proberly have but coming up for air is so true about the ignorance about before the war no one knows how it was and the book is just bursting with inspiration for 1984. am a big fan of huxley and social ignorance haha<br> richard

[Bernard]

The sterility and absence of individuality that Huxley predicted has <br>ALREADY arrived, in fact has been around since before Huxley was born.