Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”(psydef.substack.com)
psydef.substack.com
Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
https://psydef.substack.com/p/brave-new-world
85 comments
It turns out they were both approximately right about dystopia.
They both missed (but the film Brazil caught) that the dystopia will be run by a bureaucracy of bumbling idiots.
I think that's another dimension of the control. It'd be controversial to make a law saying "we're restricting how you repair your air condition", but if you instead said, "for your safety, you need to have a signed and stamped form B-6 to repair your air condition" you can achieve the same effect by creating layers of bumbling bureaucracy. Everybody is hostage to insane rules that obfuscate your control.
Anytime I am forced to navigate a maze of bureaucracy and/or paperwork, my mind goes to this movie. It seems more relevant with every passing day.
What humans need is an A.I. assistance specifically designed to convert bureaucracy into human speak as well as take human speak and implement/talk-to the bureaucratic process to get things done.
i.e. if you need to do some menial paperwork (i.e. file with city that you are changing plumping, the a.i. handles it for you).
Basically an interface that is human friendly and can keep governments informed/processed/licensed as needed.
i.e. if you need to do some menial paperwork (i.e. file with city that you are changing plumping, the a.i. handles it for you).
Basically an interface that is human friendly and can keep governments informed/processed/licensed as needed.
Try some of Kafka's work.
[deleted]
We are in a world of Orwell's surveillance devices, lovingly toted by the proles as Huxley suggested.
It seems a lot of literary dystopias have merged and manifested into our current reality. At this point I'm just waiting for someone harpoon at my car as I approach an onramp.
I look forward to applying for citizenship in Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong
Despite all the insightful intellectual back and forth on this thread, this is my favorite comment.
Right over my head. Is this just a snarky Moby Dick joke?
It’s a reference to “Snow Crash” by Neil Stephenson
My pleasure
Here's another interesting excerpt, from Neil Postman's "Amusing ourselves to death":
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
The book was released on 1985, and its main premise is that the mass-media has a damaging effect in our capacities to understand and elaborate rational arguments. In his opinion, TV was their age soma. I wonder what he would think today...
As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
The book was released on 1985, and its main premise is that the mass-media has a damaging effect in our capacities to understand and elaborate rational arguments. In his opinion, TV was their age soma. I wonder what he would think today...
Soma is still drugs. The collective prevalence of alcohol, marijuana, and psychiatric medication is nearly 100%, and probably 10x higher in dose than when the novel was written.
[deleted]
Our bodies are this type of utopia. Some billions years ago individual cells evolved to live in collectives. Then they evolved to form specific castes or as we call them tissues. Cancer is a disease where some cells are loosing their caste and multiply. Auto-immune diseases are when the army caste of a body does not serve the collective.
So the next step of evolution might be a hive, Locutus?
Nono
Not a hive, slime, slime is the final form
https://twitter.com/EmojiPan/status/1353088799086157835?s=20
https://twitter.com/EmojiPan/status/1353088799086157835?s=20
This was a good essay. Covers the entire book perfectly. When I was 11 years old I asked my brother for a book to read, and he gave me this. I read it at summer camp. It was the first book that made me really and truly THINK.
And I found I liked thinking.
And I found I liked thinking.
[deleted]
It's a real shame that Huxley's final novel Island, written after his first exposure to actual psychedelics, gets so little press compared to Brave New World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(Huxley_novel)
But apparently the world wasn't ready for a utopia of Tantric sex and drugs where people are genuinely happy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(Huxley_novel)
But apparently the world wasn't ready for a utopia of Tantric sex and drugs where people are genuinely happy.
Brave New World has become more than a novel now...it's a symbol in the cultural lexicon. Another example is the use of "orwellian" as an adjective by people that have never read 1984. I agree that his other works demonstrate his skills as an artist much better.
Another of Huxley's books that's shamefully unknown is "The Perennial Philosophy" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061724947?ie=UTF8&linkCod... where fleshes out the teachings of major religious traditions
>Tantric sex and drugs where people are genuinely happy
That seems like vapid, temporary happiness to me. Like rockstar, Kurt Cobain, type happiness.
That seems like vapid, temporary happiness to me. Like rockstar, Kurt Cobain, type happiness.
Kurt Cobain isn't typically who I would think of when prompted with the phrase "Rockstar Happiness"
Quite far from it. Have a read!
> Quite far from it. Have a read!
I've read it, along with his entire bibliography as Aldous Huxley has been my favorite author since I read Doors of Perception as 16 year old boy, and I think that both are still highlighting the pitfalls of centralized planning of Society as in the case within Brave New World.
To me both seem like a direct response to the perils outlined in Artic Hay, which is to say that effective centralized planning of Society and Human Organization can be successfully achieved provided you include the basic needs and wants of the Human Condition while catering to it's pleasure seeking nature to make one's servitude acceptable (include Genetic modification as in the case of BnW) all while omitting the need for strife, challenge, and adversity that makes something feel fulfilling for Humans: hence the story of the savage.
I've read it, along with his entire bibliography as Aldous Huxley has been my favorite author since I read Doors of Perception as 16 year old boy, and I think that both are still highlighting the pitfalls of centralized planning of Society as in the case within Brave New World.
To me both seem like a direct response to the perils outlined in Artic Hay, which is to say that effective centralized planning of Society and Human Organization can be successfully achieved provided you include the basic needs and wants of the Human Condition while catering to it's pleasure seeking nature to make one's servitude acceptable (include Genetic modification as in the case of BnW) all while omitting the need for strife, challenge, and adversity that makes something feel fulfilling for Humans: hence the story of the savage.
I quite like the idea in “The Island” that there is a desire to dominant within all people, but for those who have a strong compulsion to dominate, we must provide a productive outlet. In the novel, this outlet was rock climbing in which the desire to dominate is turned inward upon the self rather than outward upon other people.
Island is an amazing book. I highly recommend it. I read it at least once a year and its just as moving the 10th time as it was the first.
On your last note, I felt Heinlein tripped on something similar while writing Time enough for love[0]. I haven't read Island, I'll put it on my list.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love
Transhumanist philosopher David Pearce has a fascinating piece arguing along these lines. The dystopic Brave New World "has come to serve as the false symbol for any regime of universal happiness", and Island offers a counterpoint, however hardly anybody has read it compared to Brave New World: https://www.huxley.net/
And then there's Huxley's "Brave New World Revisited" published about 30 years afterwards, with twelve essays to look at the world in 1958. He concludes (iirc) that a lot of the changes he expected to appear in a hundred years after "Brave New World" took shape already.
If he had predicted that the primary means of conditioning the public would be T.V. instead of hypnopedia, there would be no doubt that we're living in something like BNW -- or at least one of its spiritual progeny.
Hypnopedia was really just continuous repetition of "facts" until they were an autonomous response.
I'd say he was pretty damn close.
I'd say he was pretty damn close.
That's a very good point... and are we really awake when we watch T.V.? Or are we in some type of suggestive state?
I wrote the above and then did some googling. Found this article: https://www.fastcompany.com/3060491/what-happened-to-my-brai.... I don't know how reputable it is, but here's a quote relevant to this discussion:
"There have been EEG studies that demonstrate that television watching converts the brain from beta wave activity to alpha waves, which are associated with a daydreaming state, and a reduced use of critical thinking skills."
I wrote the above and then did some googling. Found this article: https://www.fastcompany.com/3060491/what-happened-to-my-brai.... I don't know how reputable it is, but here's a quote relevant to this discussion:
"There have been EEG studies that demonstrate that television watching converts the brain from beta wave activity to alpha waves, which are associated with a daydreaming state, and a reduced use of critical thinking skills."
a lot of people seem to source their opinions directly from their preferred flavour of news or opinion show.
What a nightmare. How could we let it get to this point? People that have no direct interest in our well being are informing our worldview.
We don’t use repetition. We use behavioral thought control by giving rewards (good grades) for demonstration of belief (test taking) at early ages. These are nearly impossible to reverse at any age once embedded.
Kids believe in the tooth faerie, but can reconcile this belief later because it never showed up on a test. Now I’m going to piss off everybody. Try to reconcile your beliefs with observable facts about King Leonidas or Helen Keller. Or if you went to a fundamentalist school, try any religious figure. Those are minor beliefs that have little consequence for society. There are major ones too.
At some point, you should realize that you live in a fictional belief system. And I mean you, not just people who you think have been brainwashed. If you’re really truly brilliant and skeptical, you may reconcile 0.1% of these beliefs, but even then subject to “Murray Gell-Man” amnesia for 99.9% of your beliefs. The only people who can possibly escape this are those who are labeled as imbeciles for their inability to convert between memory of fact and assumption of belief.
For instance, there are ‘idiot savants’ that can memorize an entire book just for fun, but will never assume that anything written in any book is actually true. These people are completely unable to assimilate culturally, and we institutionalize them for that reason.
A a side note, just as soma (and nearly all popular drugs) create suggestibility, I think it should be possible to reverse this and become more like an idiot savant. An example might be an antagonist of dopamine, serotonin, or opiate receptors, but I’m not sure. If anybody has any other ideas or experience with currently-available compounds, I would like to hear them.
Kids believe in the tooth faerie, but can reconcile this belief later because it never showed up on a test. Now I’m going to piss off everybody. Try to reconcile your beliefs with observable facts about King Leonidas or Helen Keller. Or if you went to a fundamentalist school, try any religious figure. Those are minor beliefs that have little consequence for society. There are major ones too.
At some point, you should realize that you live in a fictional belief system. And I mean you, not just people who you think have been brainwashed. If you’re really truly brilliant and skeptical, you may reconcile 0.1% of these beliefs, but even then subject to “Murray Gell-Man” amnesia for 99.9% of your beliefs. The only people who can possibly escape this are those who are labeled as imbeciles for their inability to convert between memory of fact and assumption of belief.
For instance, there are ‘idiot savants’ that can memorize an entire book just for fun, but will never assume that anything written in any book is actually true. These people are completely unable to assimilate culturally, and we institutionalize them for that reason.
A a side note, just as soma (and nearly all popular drugs) create suggestibility, I think it should be possible to reverse this and become more like an idiot savant. An example might be an antagonist of dopamine, serotonin, or opiate receptors, but I’m not sure. If anybody has any other ideas or experience with currently-available compounds, I would like to hear them.
A perfect life can be dystopian. Stability, convenience, distraction, and safety seem like the pillars of Huxley’s dystopia. I feel like we don’t talk enough about the last bit, safety. In today’s modern world some notions of safety - like crash testing cars - are very sensible. When focus on safety and elimination of risks is taken to an extreme however, it can lead to unbearable limits on people. Suddenly free expression, personal choice, experimentation, and adopting a different calculation of risks than others might be not allowed. The notion of safetyism was popularized by The Coddling of the American Mind (https://quillette.com/2018/09/02/is-safetyism-destroying-a-g...), and I see the concept creep mentioned in that book continuing today. It’s always with the best of intentions, in pursuit of a perfect world, but I worry that we are veering towards Huxley’s nightmare.
In Huxley's dystopia, all friction is eliminated. Friction is what makes people wake up. These "unbearable limits," i.e., friction, would not exist in Brave New World.
It sounds a lot like the Netherlands. It’s so damn nice and functional here — more freedom than the US, even — but there is a gnawing sense that it will lead to a very dulltopian world, where needs are fully satisfied and life becomes rather unimportant.
> dulltopain
Huxley ultimately believes, as all artists believe, that a creative life is the only life worth living. Suffering and conflict is the fuel of all higher pursuits. In Brave New World, people are drained of this fuel. Life is easy. People just go along with the flow. But this means they create nothing. This is a horrifying prospect to Huxley.
"One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star."
-- Nietzsche
Huxley ultimately believes, as all artists believe, that a creative life is the only life worth living. Suffering and conflict is the fuel of all higher pursuits. In Brave New World, people are drained of this fuel. Life is easy. People just go along with the flow. But this means they create nothing. This is a horrifying prospect to Huxley.
"One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star."
-- Nietzsche
"Suffering and conflict is the fuel of all higher pursuits"
I disagree. I mean, the combinations of education, travel, and hallucinogens has pushed me further in my art and intellectual curiosity than suffering ever has. For so many people, suffering simply stagnates them because it eats up so much mental and physical energy.
The lives are certainly not without conflict, however. Meeting social norms still creates some conflict (what, you want to be with only one person!?!). Most folks are, however, missing things that pushes them just a little outside of their comfort zone - but you certainly don't need conflict for that, but rather, just things that are different enough.
I disagree. I mean, the combinations of education, travel, and hallucinogens has pushed me further in my art and intellectual curiosity than suffering ever has. For so many people, suffering simply stagnates them because it eats up so much mental and physical energy.
The lives are certainly not without conflict, however. Meeting social norms still creates some conflict (what, you want to be with only one person!?!). Most folks are, however, missing things that pushes them just a little outside of their comfort zone - but you certainly don't need conflict for that, but rather, just things that are different enough.
> It sounds a lot like the Netherlands
It's almost a relief to see I'm not the only one having this view. I've been living in NL for the better part of a decade now and to most of the people back home (one of those terrible 'former Eastern Bloc' countries) I sound like a complete lunatic when I bring up similar impressions.
I guess an ideal place would have to be as functional as the Netherlands and yet far less soulless. Is this possible I wonder? Is there some intrinsic trade-off between the two aspects?
It's almost a relief to see I'm not the only one having this view. I've been living in NL for the better part of a decade now and to most of the people back home (one of those terrible 'former Eastern Bloc' countries) I sound like a complete lunatic when I bring up similar impressions.
I guess an ideal place would have to be as functional as the Netherlands and yet far less soulless. Is this possible I wonder? Is there some intrinsic trade-off between the two aspects?
Ironically, this stance (that lack of conflict equates to lack of soul) may only be possible after one has become accustomed to a peaceful and stable life.
> that lack of conflict equates to lack of soul
Yeah, I realize the attitude is a bit simplistic. It's certainly true that serious conflict is way worse than boring mild-dystopia.
I'm thinking however of someplace like the 'second-tier' rich European countries - the Northern Meditteranean, perhaps even a few former 'Eastern Bloc' places. Those might have a better balance.
Yeah, I realize the attitude is a bit simplistic. It's certainly true that serious conflict is way worse than boring mild-dystopia.
I'm thinking however of someplace like the 'second-tier' rich European countries - the Northern Meditteranean, perhaps even a few former 'Eastern Bloc' places. Those might have a better balance.
The best social safety net in the world can only protect you so much from the needs of your own children, absent some sort of young ladies illustrated primer taking over. So in that since parenting becomes more important to parents human thriving when other struggles die.
You will own nothing, and you will be happy.
If you find all this interesting, look into Aldous’ brother Julian Huxley sometime. Infamous eugenicist and architect of a few institutions that are still influential today.
Demons to some. Angels to others.
There is a time for everything.
A time for pleasure, a time for pain.
Nonetheless they decide, not the others.
Since that basic structure of the human condition won't change anytime soon, pray for them profiting from your guilty little pleasures. The time the machine stops, the pain will return.
Since that basic structure of the human condition won't change anytime soon, pray for them profiting from your guilty little pleasures. The time the machine stops, the pain will return.
BNW remains to this day one of my biggest disappointments when it comes to the classics. I remember reading it maybe fifteen years ago and I went in with this expectation to read this brilliant critique of modern consumer society everyone was referencing, what did I get? The antagonists of the book are called Marx, Lenina and Mustapha (read: muslims, women and commies running the world government), and the hero is a guy called John the Savage who reads Shakespeare in the redneck reservation and is the real woke one compared to all the sheep on soma and sex.
If someone wrote this book today you would think they have listened to too much talk radio, and I think it's one of the best examples of what Leo Marx called 'the machine in the garden' myth.[1] the anxiety of (predominantly anglosphere) authors that technology and industrialization disrupt their naturalistic and God given, pastoral community.
I think I might be one of the few people who read the book and came away liking the one world government more, because the book completely and utterly failed to convince me how it is anything but fear of modernity, technology and the liberation of women from reproductive obligations. That last part is very important and in that respect the book has aged particularly poorly. The author of the essay at the end calls the book a warning of 'feminine tyranny', and I think that's exactly right. Huxley seems to be dead afraid of a society in which the monogamous family is washed away by technology and higher forms of social organization, without really making the case why hanging out in the reservation is supposed to be any good.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_in_the_Garden
If someone wrote this book today you would think they have listened to too much talk radio, and I think it's one of the best examples of what Leo Marx called 'the machine in the garden' myth.[1] the anxiety of (predominantly anglosphere) authors that technology and industrialization disrupt their naturalistic and God given, pastoral community.
I think I might be one of the few people who read the book and came away liking the one world government more, because the book completely and utterly failed to convince me how it is anything but fear of modernity, technology and the liberation of women from reproductive obligations. That last part is very important and in that respect the book has aged particularly poorly. The author of the essay at the end calls the book a warning of 'feminine tyranny', and I think that's exactly right. Huxley seems to be dead afraid of a society in which the monogamous family is washed away by technology and higher forms of social organization, without really making the case why hanging out in the reservation is supposed to be any good.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine_in_the_Garden
My take on the book (which I think is the more common one) is that it's a criticism of a form of 'soft' fascism. People are placed on a rigid hierarchy where everybody is biologically conditioned to belong to a certain caste. At least the individuals of the upper caste live a carefree life of empty consumerism and everybody is constantly intoxicated with happiness-inducing narcotics.
While it's not unfair to suspect Huxley of primitivist nostalgia, I don't think his reaction is against progressive modernity, feminism, leftism in general. The fear to my mind is of something like Taylorism/Fordism taken to its extreme [1].
What I've always found more compelling in BNW as compared to explicitly totalitarian dystopias (1984 etc.) is precisely that the dehumanizing, alienating, oppressive nature of the system is hidden. On the face of it it's a utopia, nothing to complain about. The abomination shows itself when you read a bit between the lines.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Fordism_and_so...
While it's not unfair to suspect Huxley of primitivist nostalgia, I don't think his reaction is against progressive modernity, feminism, leftism in general. The fear to my mind is of something like Taylorism/Fordism taken to its extreme [1].
What I've always found more compelling in BNW as compared to explicitly totalitarian dystopias (1984 etc.) is precisely that the dehumanizing, alienating, oppressive nature of the system is hidden. On the face of it it's a utopia, nothing to complain about. The abomination shows itself when you read a bit between the lines.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Fordism_and_so...
As the writer of this review, I agree that the book's fame sets expectations that cannot possibly be met. And perhaps my enthusiastic review which ignores its inadequacies, in favor of focusing on the value I saw in it, also inflates one's expectations to the determent of the work.
It's not a masterpiece of literature. Huxley himself did not believe it was a great work of his. It has, however, become a symbol for an insidious type of tyranny that I have called "feminine tyranny."
> Huxley seems to be dead afraid of a society in which the monogamous family is washed away by technology and higher forms of social organization, without really making the case why hanging out in the reservation is supposed to be any good.
These "higher forms of social organization" can only come at the expense of the individual. This is one of Huxley's main anxieties.
Huxley was not a racist, he was not a sexist: he was a creative individual. He saw how collectivization movements were killing his kind. Brave New World is his cry. Given that Huxley was a writer, who names several of his books with the words of Shakespeare -- Brave New World itself is a bit of dialogue from The Tempest, -- I believe John IS Huxley's avatar. And John commits suicide at the end.
I find myself incredibly sad that you've interpreted him this way. I truly don't believe he was the type of individual you claim he was.
It's not a masterpiece of literature. Huxley himself did not believe it was a great work of his. It has, however, become a symbol for an insidious type of tyranny that I have called "feminine tyranny."
> Huxley seems to be dead afraid of a society in which the monogamous family is washed away by technology and higher forms of social organization, without really making the case why hanging out in the reservation is supposed to be any good.
These "higher forms of social organization" can only come at the expense of the individual. This is one of Huxley's main anxieties.
Huxley was not a racist, he was not a sexist: he was a creative individual. He saw how collectivization movements were killing his kind. Brave New World is his cry. Given that Huxley was a writer, who names several of his books with the words of Shakespeare -- Brave New World itself is a bit of dialogue from The Tempest, -- I believe John IS Huxley's avatar. And John commits suicide at the end.
I find myself incredibly sad that you've interpreted him this way. I truly don't believe he was the type of individual you claim he was.
I mean don't get me wrong, I don't think he's sexist or racist (at least not any more than most of his peers at the time) but I don't think he actually transcends his anxieties or sentimentality.
What the book boils down to, and you touch on it a few times, is a criticism of manufactured society. But the book never gives this a fair shake. John's experience is authentic because it is 'natural', synthetic desires are not. People choose the brave new world because they're genetically brainwashed, not because Huxley generally considers if there's something to that world that would make people chose it. Individualism is good, collectivism is mindless, driven home by characters who are largely neurotic caricatures without Soma.
The kind of questions I think a work like this needs to deal with are, what if there are collective experiences, more real, more genuine than anything any individual could ever feel, what if John is actually wrong, is he just limited in his perspective? What makes John more authentic of a character, aren't his drives just as biologically determined, but merely by chance rather than by design?
John is a sort of Neo among bluepilled people, everyone else is just an 'NPC' as people would say today. The one thinking guy who has walked into the Borg cube etc. And i think like the Matrix as real social criticism this is kind of trite. It does not take alternatives to individualism seriously.
What the book boils down to, and you touch on it a few times, is a criticism of manufactured society. But the book never gives this a fair shake. John's experience is authentic because it is 'natural', synthetic desires are not. People choose the brave new world because they're genetically brainwashed, not because Huxley generally considers if there's something to that world that would make people chose it. Individualism is good, collectivism is mindless, driven home by characters who are largely neurotic caricatures without Soma.
The kind of questions I think a work like this needs to deal with are, what if there are collective experiences, more real, more genuine than anything any individual could ever feel, what if John is actually wrong, is he just limited in his perspective? What makes John more authentic of a character, aren't his drives just as biologically determined, but merely by chance rather than by design?
John is a sort of Neo among bluepilled people, everyone else is just an 'NPC' as people would say today. The one thinking guy who has walked into the Borg cube etc. And i think like the Matrix as real social criticism this is kind of trite. It does not take alternatives to individualism seriously.
I'm not sure that's a complete perspective, either. It's been a minute since I last read the book, but doesn't the world society offer an option of exile for those who can't tolerate participation in it? I recall Mond offering that to John, anyway.
Read in retrospect, one could find in it a cri de coeur on behalf of what is today called "authenticity" and, oft as not, itself manufactured (#vanlife).
I think what the book is really missing, in the light of a century hence, is a discussion of how this exquisitely planned, designed, and constructed society handles a crisis - a change in circumstances that calls the assumptions of its design into question or invalidates them outright. When Huxley wrote, it was still possible to repose one's faith in technological positivism, which was after all the vastly prevailing intellectual current of the day. These days, maybe not so much - if nothing else, the last few decades have put a lot of deep dents in the idea that we, as a species in the large, can and will engineer ourselves out of any difficulty we encounter. I'd like to see someone take on the question of what happens to the Brave New World society in the face of that.
Read in retrospect, one could find in it a cri de coeur on behalf of what is today called "authenticity" and, oft as not, itself manufactured (#vanlife).
I think what the book is really missing, in the light of a century hence, is a discussion of how this exquisitely planned, designed, and constructed society handles a crisis - a change in circumstances that calls the assumptions of its design into question or invalidates them outright. When Huxley wrote, it was still possible to repose one's faith in technological positivism, which was after all the vastly prevailing intellectual current of the day. These days, maybe not so much - if nothing else, the last few decades have put a lot of deep dents in the idea that we, as a species in the large, can and will engineer ourselves out of any difficulty we encounter. I'd like to see someone take on the question of what happens to the Brave New World society in the face of that.
I value your critique. You're right that the work does not fully explore these questions.
> What makes John more authentic of a character, aren't his drives just as biologically determined, but merely by chance rather than by design?
This is a really good question. John is more authentic because he's an individual -- I know, don't scoff yet. He's looking to create a personal connection with Lenina. He doesn't want to "have" her like the other men have her: he wants to love her. Lenina cannot form love bond with John -- that's not in her programming. She can only sample his sexuality.
Now, we may ask: what's the value of personal connections? I have a hard time answering this in the abstract right now, but all I can say is that I've enjoyed intense personal connections in my life that could never be replaced by impersonal collective relations.
> What makes John more authentic of a character, aren't his drives just as biologically determined, but merely by chance rather than by design?
This is a really good question. John is more authentic because he's an individual -- I know, don't scoff yet. He's looking to create a personal connection with Lenina. He doesn't want to "have" her like the other men have her: he wants to love her. Lenina cannot form love bond with John -- that's not in her programming. She can only sample his sexuality.
Now, we may ask: what's the value of personal connections? I have a hard time answering this in the abstract right now, but all I can say is that I've enjoyed intense personal connections in my life that could never be replaced by impersonal collective relations.
This really isn't a useful axis of distinction, not least because (iirc) the work under discussion effectively disposes of it during Mond's disquisition. You'd do better to distinguish between John's self-ownership and Lenina's total lack of awareness that she might even have any responsibility of self-determination. That I think is what you're groping toward with this ill-defined, handwavey claim around "individual".
You'd likewise do better to look further beyond the text - you have, after all, a century of perspective on which to draw, but your analysis reads as if uninformed by anything newer than Nietzsche or maybe Evola. Whether that's intentional I've no idea, but either way it seems to have caused you a harder time finding anything new to say here.
You can, I hope, do better than "hedonistic nihilism is bad actually", and I'd be interested to see what might come of the attempt.
You'd likewise do better to look further beyond the text - you have, after all, a century of perspective on which to draw, but your analysis reads as if uninformed by anything newer than Nietzsche or maybe Evola. Whether that's intentional I've no idea, but either way it seems to have caused you a harder time finding anything new to say here.
You can, I hope, do better than "hedonistic nihilism is bad actually", and I'd be interested to see what might come of the attempt.
I appreciate your challenge here. You're right that my reply was handwavy. I'd love to read your analysis of the question if you'd oblige me. I'll also make another attempt as you ask.
I ultimately believe that there's a progression system of consciousness related to the nature of our being. Modifying our being by forming different kinds of attachments and detachments, in the Jungian sense of alchemy, allows us to achieve different states of consciousness. It appears to me that there exists an "enlightened" state of consciousness that is associated with the "perfect being." I believe the greatest achievement and goal of human existence is to transform ourselves into this perfect being, i.e., attain enlightenment.
Lenina has subordinated her prima materia to the macro alchemical work. Whereas John reserves his prima materia and seeks to work it himself in solitude. John is thus on the path to enlightenment, but Lenina has abandoned the path. If John keeps going, he may develop a pure enough being to see the kingdom of God, i.e., attain enlightenment (see Matthew 5:8). This is why John is ultimately superior to Lenina.
The beings of Helmholtz and Bernard offer us perfect examples of superiority and inferiority in being. Bernard is attached to the collective, but his attachment to the collective is not yielding its expected returns -- hence his misery. Helmholtz, on the other hand, is attached to the collective, but the yield on that bond is not enough to complete him: Helmholtz is yearning for a higher state of development, i.e., for a higher state of being.
When Bernard's status is elevated in the collective by his exploitation of John, he is overjoyed and complete. Helmholtz exploits John in a different way: he uses the Shakespeare in John to help him develop his potentialities, i.e., evolve into a higher state of being. The better man is seeking to evolve, while the lesser man yearns to fit in his place.
This is a brief sense of the metaphysics I subscribe to and the judgement it produces.
That's the hackernews comment "attempt" in any case.
I ultimately believe that there's a progression system of consciousness related to the nature of our being. Modifying our being by forming different kinds of attachments and detachments, in the Jungian sense of alchemy, allows us to achieve different states of consciousness. It appears to me that there exists an "enlightened" state of consciousness that is associated with the "perfect being." I believe the greatest achievement and goal of human existence is to transform ourselves into this perfect being, i.e., attain enlightenment.
Lenina has subordinated her prima materia to the macro alchemical work. Whereas John reserves his prima materia and seeks to work it himself in solitude. John is thus on the path to enlightenment, but Lenina has abandoned the path. If John keeps going, he may develop a pure enough being to see the kingdom of God, i.e., attain enlightenment (see Matthew 5:8). This is why John is ultimately superior to Lenina.
The beings of Helmholtz and Bernard offer us perfect examples of superiority and inferiority in being. Bernard is attached to the collective, but his attachment to the collective is not yielding its expected returns -- hence his misery. Helmholtz, on the other hand, is attached to the collective, but the yield on that bond is not enough to complete him: Helmholtz is yearning for a higher state of development, i.e., for a higher state of being.
When Bernard's status is elevated in the collective by his exploitation of John, he is overjoyed and complete. Helmholtz exploits John in a different way: he uses the Shakespeare in John to help him develop his potentialities, i.e., evolve into a higher state of being. The better man is seeking to evolve, while the lesser man yearns to fit in his place.
This is a brief sense of the metaphysics I subscribe to and the judgement it produces.
That's the hackernews comment "attempt" in any case.
That's one hell of a reading of Matthew 5:8. In this deontology of yours, how are "superior" and "inferior" defined, precisely?
Purity of being. In the same way a saint would be considered superior to a murderer in Christian deontology.
I wasn't too impressed with the writing, especially after hearing so much about the book. However, I think it provides an interesting alternative to the fear based absolute authoritarian control used by governments to varying effect currently and throughout history.
Huxley's description of a biological determinant (arbitrary or otherwise) as the basis upon which to build a discriminatory caste system for all of humanity is horrifying enough. To then drug the population in order to prevent them from feeling bad about being slaves to their biological betters is the icing on the cake.
Whether an Alpha or epsilon, that's not a world that I would want to live in.
Huxley's description of a biological determinant (arbitrary or otherwise) as the basis upon which to build a discriminatory caste system for all of humanity is horrifying enough. To then drug the population in order to prevent them from feeling bad about being slaves to their biological betters is the icing on the cake.
Whether an Alpha or epsilon, that's not a world that I would want to live in.
Were we're heading, we will wish that discrimination was based on biological factors. Instead, it will be based on mental factors. Cruelty, deception, hypocrisy, psychopathy, inhumanity will be rewarded. The determinant of class will be good and evil, with evil at the top.
At the top, there will exist a form of altruism so superficial and devoid of substance that only insane people will be able to join the elite class.
The best we can hope for is that the elites will be so insane that they won't last very long; that way we can get enough churn to ensure that no individual ever has enough time to enforce their insanity on the rest of the population.
As a group, we can hope that they will be so insane that they won't be able to agree on anything; their power will be constrained by their heterogeneous irrationality.
The worst case scenario is that we end up with homogeneous irrationality... Sadly we can see some signs of this today. Let's hope it can't sustain itself.
It does sometimes seem that mentally unstable people seek stability by leaning on other unstable people who are afflicted with the same kind of irrationality... Instead of looking to lean on mentally stable people who are different from them.
It seems as if mentally unstable people hate stable people. Maybe there is a deep seated jealousy behind this. Which is kind of ironic because they could probably get there themselves if they surrounded themselves with stable people. But they lack the humility to see this and nobody in their circles will ever point it out to them since they suffer from the same problem.
At the top, there will exist a form of altruism so superficial and devoid of substance that only insane people will be able to join the elite class.
The best we can hope for is that the elites will be so insane that they won't last very long; that way we can get enough churn to ensure that no individual ever has enough time to enforce their insanity on the rest of the population.
As a group, we can hope that they will be so insane that they won't be able to agree on anything; their power will be constrained by their heterogeneous irrationality.
The worst case scenario is that we end up with homogeneous irrationality... Sadly we can see some signs of this today. Let's hope it can't sustain itself.
It does sometimes seem that mentally unstable people seek stability by leaning on other unstable people who are afflicted with the same kind of irrationality... Instead of looking to lean on mentally stable people who are different from them.
It seems as if mentally unstable people hate stable people. Maybe there is a deep seated jealousy behind this. Which is kind of ironic because they could probably get there themselves if they surrounded themselves with stable people. But they lack the humility to see this and nobody in their circles will ever point it out to them since they suffer from the same problem.
I have a book recommendation for you: book of Ephesians in the bible.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." - Ephesians 6:12
Today we're calling it "mentally unstable" or "psychotic" or "sociopatic," but yesterday we simply called it "evil."
It's the eternal struggle.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." - Ephesians 6:12
Today we're calling it "mentally unstable" or "psychotic" or "sociopatic," but yesterday we simply called it "evil."
It's the eternal struggle.
> Were we're heading
What makes you think we're headed that way? Are there other plausible directions?
What makes you think we're headed that way? Are there other plausible directions?
I just see a strong correlation between mental instability and career success. I'm only speaking from personal experience. Sometimes it feels like it's the instability itself, not any specific action which leads to success because unstable people seem to recognise each other and help each other. Even among those who are psychopathic.
I've actually known quite a few people that liked the society depiceted in the novel. I had one friend that felt that it was ideal because what was depicted was a less painful version of the mindless drudgery that most of the world spends their life in, and those that don't fit in are sent somewhere where they can be themselves (Falkland Islands) He saw it as a better version of the divisions already present in our society. (His opinions, not mine.)
I've found the novel to be a bit of a Rorschach blot since people read their whole view of current society, and their place in it into the novel. As has been pointed out, Huxley was an artist, so his interpretation of his novel is heavily guided by a creative personality, and for many creative people, individuality is one of the highest goods. Others read their own views into it, and interpret the novel very differently. My personal reading has some sympathies with Huxley's version, but it is not the same. I'm not a fan of the way society (both at the macro and micro level) is structured now (or in 1932), so there are aspects of BNW that appeal to me.
I've found the novel to be a bit of a Rorschach blot since people read their whole view of current society, and their place in it into the novel. As has been pointed out, Huxley was an artist, so his interpretation of his novel is heavily guided by a creative personality, and for many creative people, individuality is one of the highest goods. Others read their own views into it, and interpret the novel very differently. My personal reading has some sympathies with Huxley's version, but it is not the same. I'm not a fan of the way society (both at the macro and micro level) is structured now (or in 1932), so there are aspects of BNW that appeal to me.
>Huxley seems to be dead afraid of a society in which the monogamous family is washed away by technology and higher forms of social organization, without really making the case why hanging out in the reservation is supposed to be any good.
The case he makes is his horrifying depiction of the alternative to the monogamous family. You're correct in identifying his fears, but I personally don't see that they're unfounded. I can't help but feel an instinctual revulsion at "the monogamous family being washed away by technology and higher forms of social organization", its a profound loss of individuality
The case he makes is his horrifying depiction of the alternative to the monogamous family. You're correct in identifying his fears, but I personally don't see that they're unfounded. I can't help but feel an instinctual revulsion at "the monogamous family being washed away by technology and higher forms of social organization", its a profound loss of individuality
Calling the caste system a higher form of social organization compared to monogamy couldn’t make me disagree with your perspective more. Additionally I share Huxley’s belief and preference for a pastoral lifestyle and the odiousness of a feminized society. Your classification of child rearing as a “burden” doesn’t make your views palatable.
The only things we agree on are that I like the heads of the one world government as well.
The only things we agree on are that I like the heads of the one world government as well.
The warning from Huxley is regarding what happens when the choice of child rearing (and bearing) are removed by both government and social pressures. He explores this to the extreme but many aspects of his thought experiment in Brave New World exist today.
More and more of child rearing is controlled by state institutions: child care, preschool, grade school, trade school, university, sports/activities, work, etc. Some are mandatory and some people are left with no other choice, e.g. both parents have to work to make ends meet, extended families live farther apart. A mother or father working as homemakers and child rearers are negatively viewed and social pressure mounts against one who chooses to do so (speaking from experience).
More and more of child rearing is controlled by state institutions: child care, preschool, grade school, trade school, university, sports/activities, work, etc. Some are mandatory and some people are left with no other choice, e.g. both parents have to work to make ends meet, extended families live farther apart. A mother or father working as homemakers and child rearers are negatively viewed and social pressure mounts against one who chooses to do so (speaking from experience).
I agree, i also found the writing to be very "try hard" and pretty unpleasant to read.
That might be because i'm not a native english speaker, though.
That might be because i'm not a native english speaker, though.
You're just going to ignore the entire engineered caste system part of the book?
I actually do entirely ignore it because I think it's purely a creation of the author for the purpose of making his point. Caste society is not a symptom of modernity, in fact the opposite. It's an anachronism in the book, sort of like putting your ideological opponent into a Nazi uniform and giving him a tiny mustache and making him speak with a scary German accent.
Slavery (which is really what it is in the story) you are more likely to enounter in the Antebellum South than in a modern metropolis and high modernity. Limiting the intellectual capacity of your subjects would never be the point of the kind of society that Huxley envisions, and it's one example of how he does not take the thing he aims to critique seriously.
A society so advanced it could realize Huxley's fears is not at the same time going to build itself a medieval army of slaves. Even at the time of Huxley's writing Taylorism was already well past its peak and criticism of mechanized production was everywhere.
Slavery (which is really what it is in the story) you are more likely to enounter in the Antebellum South than in a modern metropolis and high modernity. Limiting the intellectual capacity of your subjects would never be the point of the kind of society that Huxley envisions, and it's one example of how he does not take the thing he aims to critique seriously.
A society so advanced it could realize Huxley's fears is not at the same time going to build itself a medieval army of slaves. Even at the time of Huxley's writing Taylorism was already well past its peak and criticism of mechanized production was everywhere.
> I think it's purely a creation of the author for the purpose of making his point
It's a deliberate critique of eugenics, which was a popular and little criticized school of thought at the time of writing, and which did in its original iteration claim to offer the prospect of engineering people to fit assigned social roles.
It's a deliberate critique of eugenics, which was a popular and little criticized school of thought at the time of writing, and which did in its original iteration claim to offer the prospect of engineering people to fit assigned social roles.
Nope, it’s the central theme. It’s a deeply feminized society with preassigned behaviors and motivations and zero agency.
>Huxley seems to be dead afraid of a society in which the monogamous family is washed away by technology and higher forms of social organization...
It would be rude of me to ask about your family of origin.
It would be rude of me to ask about your family of origin.
I felt likewise.
We are literally living inside that world but people don't see it. :)
What motivation do people have to see the world as it is? Billions of people believe they will never die because Heaven is on the other side of this world. As Nietzsche wrote: "Too long, the earth has been a madhouse!" It's nothing new that humanity has a will-to-blindness. In fact, it is an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps the truth itself is hostile to life...
> In fact, it is an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps the truth itself is hostile to life...
This is one of my favorite things to discuss about this book! See, I enjoy making games and having meaningful interactions with other people, and the world is readily granting me all that. Keeping in mind that (1) I'm NOT The Chosen One, (2) I don't have 600 metric tons of plot armor, and (3) people much wiser and knowledgeable than me still find the world perfectly livable, why should I sentence myself to a lifetime of misery to end up changing nothing? How much exactly should I be convinced that I know best in order to do that?
This is one of my favorite things to discuss about this book! See, I enjoy making games and having meaningful interactions with other people, and the world is readily granting me all that. Keeping in mind that (1) I'm NOT The Chosen One, (2) I don't have 600 metric tons of plot armor, and (3) people much wiser and knowledgeable than me still find the world perfectly livable, why should I sentence myself to a lifetime of misery to end up changing nothing? How much exactly should I be convinced that I know best in order to do that?
Ultimately, I don't think it's a choice. If you fit well into your social role, then you aren't going to seek "the truth." Bernard is more aware of his surroundings because he is not suited to his role. Helmholtz is more aware because he exceeds his role. The way they are and what is expected of them preordained their awakening and its character.
As for myself, I've always felt like an alien on earth. As a kid, I truly did not understand why people did what they did. I saw people forming all these social connections, but I couldn't understand why they did it: what were they looking for in others? I've always lived in a world of my own. Patterns, structures, associations, have always interested me more than material things and socialization. If I did not have my inner creative world, then maybe I would have been like the others around me...but I was otherwise occupied and so I became an outsider -- an outworlder.
When you're naturally predisposed to be an outsider, the self-preservation matrix of the collective does not capture one's libido. One is freer psychically, but free like a starving man on the hunt for food as opposed to a sated man lounging on a couch. To not be hooked into some preservative frame induces great motion within...but is energetic motion superior to sated stillness? A question I've been trying to answer myself...
As for myself, I've always felt like an alien on earth. As a kid, I truly did not understand why people did what they did. I saw people forming all these social connections, but I couldn't understand why they did it: what were they looking for in others? I've always lived in a world of my own. Patterns, structures, associations, have always interested me more than material things and socialization. If I did not have my inner creative world, then maybe I would have been like the others around me...but I was otherwise occupied and so I became an outsider -- an outworlder.
When you're naturally predisposed to be an outsider, the self-preservation matrix of the collective does not capture one's libido. One is freer psychically, but free like a starving man on the hunt for food as opposed to a sated man lounging on a couch. To not be hooked into some preservative frame induces great motion within...but is energetic motion superior to sated stillness? A question I've been trying to answer myself...
>>As for myself, I've always felt like an alien on earth. As a kid, I truly did not understand why people did what they did. I saw people forming all these social connections, but I couldn't understand why they did it: what were they looking for in others? I've always lived in a world of my own. Patterns, structures, associations, have always interested me more than material things and socialization. If I did not have my inner creative world, then maybe I would have been like the others around me...but I was otherwise occupied and so I became an outsider -- an outworlder.
This is directly on target with how I felt as a kid to late teens. Is this something you talked with others about or maybe read somewhere? I have never came to grips on why it took me longer to understand people. My siblings close my age did well socializing where I felt out of touch.
This is directly on target with how I felt as a kid to late teens. Is this something you talked with others about or maybe read somewhere? I have never came to grips on why it took me longer to understand people. My siblings close my age did well socializing where I felt out of touch.
Maybe I'm on the autistic spectrum or something. That's why I gravitated to programming.
“…the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience.”
– Aldous Huxley, from a 1949 letter to George Orwell.