Thought Police

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-27-2008, 07:30 AM
lukgem

party ideals must stem from somewhere,it is not an instinct inbred at birth and i would suggest orthodoxy is at the very least somewhat malleable as it needs to constantly change to keep up with the present.
to my mind this needs human cunning and ingenuity.intelligence spreading fear and evil(i think atheist said that)does not seem possible at the very top if all the population(including the inner part are brainwashed)an operation on the scale of ingsoc surely would need all human attributes at the top that can be developed without constraint or it would be doomed to fail.
constant adaption i would suggest is needed to keep inner party power, dogma and fear in the inner circles would cripple the constant streams of thought needed to maintain their positions in power.
i would also suggest that material wealth is enough for the oligarchs to keep the populus in permanent bondage,that is human nature without the real unstanding of life itself and freedom.
to hold bazarov's and atheist's position(two people who's views i look forward to reading and admire)is horrifying for this biocomputer to take in.if you have what you think is goodness in your soul its hard to contemplate totalitarianism at its most extreme,its a difficult mental quandry to digest,unless you have lived through it or have the genius of orwell and the foresight of bazarov and atheist to envisage it.
jasons position is more understanable from my point of view as a member of the human race.

another caveat is the nazi's,killing and torturing their human brethren by day going home to the wife and kids at night,perfectly sane.

atheist is right humanity is a fragile thing it does not take a lot to scrape back the thin skin of civilisation and look at the cancer that lies beneath.

we were not privvy to this information in 1984 on the thought police and who polices them so the discussion must remain open for different interpretations.

by the way i really enjoy everybodys contributions to this forum,it really brings good things into my life and i appreciate that,thanks.
11-27-2008, 11:03 AM
bazarov

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukgem

i would also suggest that material wealth is enough for the oligarchs to keep the populus in permanent bondage,that is human nature without the real unstanding of life itself and freedom.

What oligarchs?

Quote:

to hold bazarov's and atheist's position(two people who's views i look forward to reading and admire)is horrifying for this biocomputer to take in.if you have what you think is goodness in your soul its hard to contemplate totalitarianism at its most extreme,its a difficult mental quandry to digest,unless you have lived through it or have the genius of orwell and the foresight of bazarov and atheist to envisage it.
jasons position is more understanable from my point of view as a member of the human race.

There are no Gods on this forum, Atheist will probably say that there is no God even outside this forum :lol:; we are all humans. So is Orwell. Just try watch from another point of view except your kind, honest and smart one and you'll see....:bawling:

Quote:

another caveat is the nazi's,killing and torturing their human brethren by day going home to the wife and kids at night,perfectly sane.

Why not? He believes that he is doing great job; every dead brings glory to Fuhrer and Third Reich. It's not that anyone normal approves that way of thinking, but there is some really weird twisted sick logic in that.

Quote:

by the way i really enjoy everybodys contributions to this forum,it really brings good things into my life and i appreciate that,thanks.

:thumbs_up

And please, use Caps Lock from time to time, and space after comma, etc. It's painful to read, but too interesting to skip. Thanks! :)
11-27-2008, 11:40 AM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

I just think the inner-party's rule is like an equation for power or dominance. I don't think it's necessary for them to believe in any of the party propaganda, rather I think it's all just a technique for control and maintenance of the existing (and permanent) hierarchy. It's power for power's sake. It's the subjugation of millions for wine and cigarettes.

Dead right!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

The severe cruelty and intelligence of inner-party members makes it difficult for me to imagine that they really believe they have restructured society in a way that is beneficial to humans (and I could certainly be accused of drastically missing the point of the novel here) and not out of pure self interest (although you could say maybe it's out of both).

Believing that their society is best for proles and Outer Party members is easy - they're happy. Through the use of Doublethink and propaganda, the people are deluded into thinking they're happy, and if they think they're happy, they are!

Bazarov nails it here:

Quote:

In my country, there is idiom: No brain, no worry!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Sorry Atheist, but I still remember ( 2 younger brothers :D ) that in stupid movie Matrix, those agents were called O'Brien, just like our dear O'Brien. And I don't believe in coincidences!

Wow! You remember their names.

:lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Believe me, you will never see unhappy fool in your life.

They don't make a thingy funny enough to show how much I laughed at that. In fact, I'm stealing that for use elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukgem

party ideals must stem from somewhere,it is not an instinct inbred at birth and i would suggest orthodoxy is at the very least somewhat malleable as it needs to constantly change to keep up with the present.
to my mind this needs human cunning and ingenuity.intelligence spreading fear and evil(i think atheist said that)does not seem possible at the very top if all the population(including the inner part are brainwashed)an operation on the scale of ingsoc surely would need all human attributes at the top that can be developed without constraint or it would be doomed to fail.
constant adaption i would suggest is needed to keep inner party power, dogma and fear in the inner circles would cripple the constant streams of thought needed to maintain their positions in power.

I dunno about this.

I expect change of any kind would be anathema to the Inner Party. Change begets thinking, for starters - every technological change brings "what if" with it, and the Party doesn't like that kind of question.

Then look at whether change is needed and I think the answer there is "no" as well.

The Proles and OP members stay as they are - their lives revolve around constants and the best way to stupefy and stultify growth is to remove change. No further technological or ethical growth is necessary for any part of life.

Plus ce change...

:D
11-27-2008, 01:40 PM
Jason Lycurgus

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Yes - nothing comparable to Orwell
Yes
Yes - but you should read whole book, not just that passage

Welcome!

I don't like it as much as Orwell, but I think he (Orwell) was influenced by it; I've read all of Brothers (one of my favorites), I just think that part is the most relevant to a discussion of 1984.
11-27-2008, 01:49 PM
bazarov

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Lycurgus

I don't like it as much as Orwell, but I think he (Orwell) was influenced by it; I've read all of Brothers (one of my favorites), I just think that part is the most relevant to a discussion of 1984.

Why? Ultramontanism?
11-27-2008, 03:48 PM
Jason Lycurgus

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Why? Ultramontanism?

I don't have my copy handy, but the Inquisitor says something to Christ to the tune of - 'You gave them freedom when all they really wanted was bread.'

The story Ivan tells reminds me of all the 'confrontation' scenes in dystopia/anti-utopia novels - D-503/Benefactor, Winston/O'Brien, The Savage/Mustapha Mond.

I haven't thought about it in awhile; maybe it's something of a surface connection.
11-27-2008, 06:43 PM
lukgem

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

What oligarchs?

There are no Gods on this forum, Atheist will probably say that there is no God even outside this forum :lol:; we are all humans. So is Orwell. Just try watch from another point of view except your kind, honest and smart one and you'll see....:bawling:

Why not? He believes that he is doing great job; every dead brings glory to Fuhrer and Third Reich. It's not that anyone normal approves that way of thinking, but there is some really weird twisted sick logic in that.

:thumbs_up

And please, use Caps Lock from time to time, and space after comma, etc. It's painful to read, but too interesting to skip. Thanks! :)

Oligarch:Government by a few,especially by a small faction of families.Those making up such a government.a state governed by a few persons.

Is this not the premise for the inner party, and the collectivism the outer party and proletariat live under?
Oligarchical collectivism.

My mistake, i meant to write, intelligence spreading fear and ignorance.

With my caveat i was supporting your viewpoint, i do understand and agree with it, but i do not like it.
11-27-2008, 07:51 PM
bazarov

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

They don't make a thingy funny enough to show how much I laughed at that. In fact, I'm stealing that for use elsewhere.

I guess you agree? :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukgem

Oligarch:Government by a few,especially by a small faction of families.Those making up such a government.a state governed by a few persons.

Is this not the premise for the inner party, and the collectivism the outer party and proletariat live under?
Oligarchical collectivism.

I know what oligarch means, but I don't see connection with 1984. Please explain, because I totally disagree with that idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukgem

With my caveat i was supporting your viewpoint, i do understand and agree with it, but i do not like it.

:p
11-27-2008, 09:32 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

I know what oligarch means, but I don't see connection with 1984. Please explain, because I totally disagree with that idea.

Goldstein's book?
11-28-2008, 03:24 AM
bazarov

Oligarchy is firstly desire for money and more money, and I don't see what would money mean for Party. Money is irrelevant and surplus when you already have absolutely everything you want and you can easily get whatever you like. In my opinion, they don't even have sense that there is something called ''money''. Power and leadership - they aim for that, not because they they want it; they need it to fulfill reason of their existence.
11-28-2008, 07:35 AM
lukgem

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Oligarchy is firstly desire for money and more money, and I don't see what would money mean for Party. Money is irrelevant and surplus when you already have absolutely everything you want and you can easily get whatever you like. In my opinion, they don't even have sense that there is something called ''money''. Power and leadership - they aim for that, not because they they want it; they need it to fulfill reason of their existence.

Not according to the dictionary, it is a word describing government by a few families or persons over everybody else.And according to orwell's own words the whole totalitarian state was goverened by oligarchical collectivism.
goldstein's book (atheist)

I also disagree/agree with you again though barazov sir!
oligarch in today's world is a word that espouses wealth, you know this anyway, but for example the russian oil and gas oligarch's who are very wealthy but not neccessarily in governmental power, the media who let us know about the latest oligarch whom seeks asylum (here in britain) do not use the word in the correct way i do not think.

By the way, i am trying to improve my etiquette whilst typing, please understand sir that i am a one finger typer who is not that comfortable with a computer.
the last i had that i took seriously was a zx spectrum 48k.
I will adapt that is the nature of learning, thankyou for your patience!
11-29-2008, 12:24 AM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Oligarchy is firstly desire for money and more money, and I don't see what would money mean for Party.

That's a modern usage. I don't even think such a use existed in 1948 and Orwell was using this one.
11-29-2008, 04:39 AM
bazarov

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukgem

I also disagree/agree with you again though barazov sir!
oligarch in today's world is a word that espouses wealth, you know this anyway, but for example the russian oil and gas oligarch's who are very wealthy but not neccessarily in governmental power, the media who let us know about the latest oligarch whom seeks asylum (here in britain) do not use the word in the correct way i do not think.

Exactly!
You're from London; you probably know all about Shinawatra, Abramovich and Khodorkovsky. They gain wealth, but not the power; so they ended like this ( although I wouldn't mind :D ) . Yes, dictionary/modern usage made here some big mess...

Quote:

I will adapt that is the nature of learning, thankyou for your patience!

Don't call me sir, you're older than me! :D Take your time, it was just an advice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's a modern usage. I don't even think such a use existed in 1948 and Orwell was using this one.

Well, I also used modern form, it suits better for my pointing and after all; we are in modern times.
11-29-2008, 03:27 PM
The Atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by bazarov

Well, I also used modern form, it suits better for my pointing and after all; we are in modern times.

The other use is still current, but media coverage in recent times has probably skewed the meaning. I'd prefer them to find another term - my first thought for "oligarchs" is the same as lukgem's.

There are already several, of which "rich bastards" probably covers it anyway!

:D
12-01-2008, 10:03 PM
Princess Belle

How Long..

How long do you think the thought police have been tracking or following Winston? Was it seven years because he had the dream of O'Brian, hearing O'Brian telling him they would meet in the place of no darkness seven years ago? Or was it from the point when Winston bought the journal and pen at the antique shop? Just wondering...
:)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page