The Memory Hole... I might pick that one. Otherwise, I'm at a loss, GF.

mass and proactive resistance to keep things from disappearing forever down the memory hole.

So, I guess I'd have to say "Whose memory hole?"

I have a bit of a bias in regard to how that happens, which I tried to express here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101797576#post11 . . . . in which I have made the observation that it's been going down the memory hole for a very long time and it never seemed to matter, so I am concerned about what people's motivations are now. I know there ARE honest concerns about drone programs and I agree with those, but I also know that it is highly likely that the motive to GET Obama may actually outrank anything useful that could happen in winding the results of our past crimes down into something that would not require so much of a price to our victims, foreign or domestic.

Unending War is not acceptable either, but the price of that is, unending watchfulness - ANOTHER problem for those who oppose not only drone programs but also committing to somekind of reform in the U.N. and the World Court.

Personally, the only way that I can imagine how that utopia, without watching, without anything like the U.N. and the World Court, without armed forces, without drone programs . . . Q. how would that utopia even be possible? A. that would be only after one holy hell of a lot of people "go away", a.k.a. die, then everything could be stable enough to actually allow the U.S. to put its position in the world on glide.

I understand the drone critique and agree with it to some extent, but I NEED to hear why/how, if its proponents are wrong, and we or some other country in the world experience 9/11 2.0, or Shock and Awe Chinese Style, why is that any more acceptable than responsible drone programs. Yes, I know the retort is, TTE, "Well, those things might not happen" but that's not the question that I am asking, because if something does happen that point is after the fact and ir-relevant. The point is, if it's okay for those things to happen if they could have been stopped, why aren't drone programs okay too. If the problem really is innocent people dying, innocent people die in either case, so why not do what you can about what you can.

Let's just say, I'm still not comfortable with that, but I DO understand it and to me the differences in what people do and do not know about the specific things that go into the calculation of the relevant probabilities (Can X happen? When? Under what conditions? How? Who?) the differences in what various persons involved do and do not know are not ir-relevant to what IS happening.

All of that said, you are right freshwest, the only response I can think of to this conundrum is for a fully responsible active honest citizenry to do its best to keep collaborative empirical analysis from going down the memory hole from one administration, one congress, to the next.

The issue of teh dronz for me is that we have to look at intent and technology. Not the nightmares of Terminator 2 and Skynet whose mission is to KILL US ALL!

I was making a long reply to someone on this subject. It's hard for people to divide fiction and fact on this. The fearmongers are pushing a lie wrapped in a truth as far as Americans are concerned. I find a sort of naive belief that we really were not born into the time we live in - that the Earth is going to be unpeopled.

Ain't happening, and we bank on that every day of the week or we'd never crawl out of the bunker. No, things are changing, getting crowded and sticky.

I'll be back. Uh, not like Ah-nuld, but I will. If not, bug me about it. Just don't send any deafsfromduhskyz, I'll do my best...

All of Asia and about the northern 1/3 of Africa - ALL of that will experience worsening drought, if I remember correctly, up to as bad as it can get under current conditions by 2015.

Anyone who thinks that won't destabilize those countries needs to reconsider. Can we afford to ignore it?

We are now competing with other humans directly for limited resources, maybe because they know we have to find our way in a different ecosystem. But droughts and ice ages and other events have conspired to make people move and have conflicts forever. The natives of north America migrated due to annual weather to survive.

They didn't hold onto any one place, as technologically advanced and crowded peoples of the eastern hemisphere did, except in a few locations - mainly in the empires surrounding the Gulf of Mexico and Carribean.

This is not a new thing, even in human history, not all written history, but still. And those who have knowledge of the climate and trends, those who are the highly educated and more stable in economic position, compile the data. There is nothing wrong with them doing so and seeking ways to survive. Those caught up in the petty passions of the day will complain and suffer when things get tight. But I suggest it will be more gradual and not as cataclysmic as the entertainment industry tells us to waste our time and keep us diverted.

Nothing to prove what I say, just a few thoughts on how this is working out. There is still no reason to give up on what we can do to mitigate the effects of large social changes individually and at our highest level. JMHO.

saying that either side is NECESSARILY wrong, just that the way this thing looks, everyone really does need to try to evaluate more COMPLETE truths. That should come first, over attacking or supporting any given person or clique at whatever level. Constructive critique & analyses are difficult, VERY difficult, with things like drone programs going on. It's hard to be heard above the PAIN, and sadness, and anger, and paranoia on all sides, but it's more necessary than ever not to pretend that what we don't know doesn't matter. I'm sure that a lot of people who hold this perspective aren't all just very pleased with what has become necessary, but they just also don't have the luxury of pretending otherwise.

Empiricism predates Orwell, and I see no connection with the latter.

fiction is from empirical facts, what was he writing about? Is the story pure abstraction? 100% fiction?

Additionally, because Aristotle wrote his book on, say, logic about 3000 years ago, does that mean it has no connection to today? Does that mean no one can write a fictional story about the use of logic and analysis? e.g. the entire literary mystery genre?

between Orwell and your two choices in the poll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian


^snip^


"Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.[1]





Neither of your choices are Orwellian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian


^snip^


"Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.





In My Opinion .... your examples do not fit this definition.


Also


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

^snip^


Fascism (pron.: /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism.[1][2] Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training.[3][4] Fascism utilizes a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation upon fascist principles.[5] Fascism views direct action including political violence and war, as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.[3][6][7]





How in the world did you jump to fascism when all I did was express an opinon that your examples do not fit the definition of "Orwellian"? It appears that you are the one who has a problem with people who simply do not agree with you.

Words have meanings and you are not using Orwellian or Fascism correctly.

collective, not just government, any group that proceeds in that same manner in order to produce doctrinaire conformity.

Have you seen any of the research on internet-astroturffing projects? Don't religions do just about exactly the same thing as you describe above? Anyone can do it and that includes what calls itself "the Left" (or A - N - Y other label for that matter) and attach some very real in-group/out-group punishers to the lack of conformity, things like employment, such as internet content writers, for example. Now, that's fascism!

Whatever the label/window dressing, if it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck, if it does what ducks do, it's a duck. And if you think words can't fool people like that, why do you care about song lyrics? If words worked the way wikipedia says they do, no one would give a rat's ass about song lyrics. There probably wouldn't even be any.

In politics: There are non-governmental groups for whom mortal risks to others, in the name of principle X (and that's principle X all implemented as your highlights above describe), . . . we are told risks for principle X are acceptable, without according those at risk the opportunity to be fully and honestly informed for their right to CHOOSE their own risks themselves for whatever principle or value. Advertising obviously does this too. That's fascistic because it takes power privileges and violates the rights of others for an agenda that it isn't necessarily sharing with those who are at risk. The assault weapons debate is also like this. People are claiming a right, in truth a PRIVILEGE, to war with our government and hurt lots of other people in the process, over a principle of their OWN exclusive definition, and without allowing others to avail themselves of their rights to make their own choices in the matter. And the people who are doing this are people that many of us had no part in choosing them to do that. That's the essence of fascism, power seeking for power alone. That's the purpose of all of those techniques that you describe above: power acquisition is the motive of fascism.

The drone debate is another example; we are supposed to conform to an anti-drone principle, because people are dying, and we are to blindly accept the risks of doing so, even though those same risks, that I/we are supposed to accept, are of the same nature as that which the anti-drone principle putatively opposes, the loss of innocent life. So, it's only okay for innocent life to die (a fact, btw, that our whole history clearly shows is not that unacceptable, whether I/you approve of that or not) ... it's only okay for innocent life to die when some unidentified group who claims to be against drones says it is.

Innocent people should not be killed, I'd like VERY much to go along with whomever on that, but, FOUR fingers, I cannot lie about what appears to be the lies that (only) SOME are propagating, intentionally or otherwise. Are we supposed to accept risks as though they are non-existent, even though, were 9/11 2.0 to happen somewhere in the world, the people who would lose their lives to that have as much right to life as those taken by our drone programs. Are YOU supposed to PRETEND it absolutely won't happen ("FIVE fingers! FIVE fingers!!&quot and, then, if it does, it doesn't matter that those people lose their lives wherever, as long as principle X is "honored", because someone (???) demands it or else??? Is this no less a prescription for Un-Ending War than the drone program is? Who says who and how many die and when?

When anyone pretends that isn't what is going on, THAT's fascism. BTW, I don't approve of drones either, but I'm not going to lie about why we should oppose them. FOUR fingers!!!

These examples and there are hundreds more (e.g. man-hating, anyone?), show how the purpose of all of the traits of fascism, which you sketch above, and which you see elsewhere is one: power acquisition for power's sake alone, because the propaganda about principles that is used to window dress fascism is completely inter-changeable. This doesn't mean that no one can stand for principles honestly, most people do stand honestly, but that honesty requires that they stand FREELY (not dependent upon rewards and punishers in clique culture) and they don't punish others who don't agree, or violate their rights to be free in their reality assessments, and hence responsible, for individual choice in any matter.

Regarding meanings: If words had the absolute kinds of meanings that you appear to think they do, if there was ONLY argument from absolutist authority, language would not work at all. period. If words worked ONLY the way that you appear to think they do, Noam Chomsky would be a nobody. Do you know what his Transformational Grammar is about? Can I get you to look that up? May I suggest that you read sources other than wikipedia? Wikipedia has been recognized for as long as I have known it as being not as unbiased in all things as some people seem to want to pretend that it is. If you are really interested in words, I suggest an un-abridged version of The Oxford English Dictionary and, also, a Roget's INTERNATIONAL Thesaurus.

Words have meanings and those meanings are associative/relative because of how language(s!!) evolved WITHIN human experiences. Language is a product of human experience. The words are NOT the same thing as what those words/any words ONLY, O - N - L - Y , refer to. Yes, a word reference can, when attached to empirical research, get pretty close to validity, but still no word = whatever it refers to and there happens also to be a whole universe of stuff, for which there is no or very little empirical knowledge, so even when a case is made from empirical authority it is still relative to that other context (just ask anyone who is authentically living in an indigenous culture).

Words are a very fungible HYPOTHETICAL system that works because we agree that it does, not because there is anything absolutely necessary about the system and what the system refers to. Don't agree to the word-hypothesis? Fine! but don't claim the PRIVILEGE of telling people they don't mean what they mean; don't claim a false right to pretend that words are something that they aren't.

Another example: If I put a bit of code here ________________ , a script, would that be a program? Or is the program what the code does within a context? and are not those contexts quite variable, some more or less the same, some similar, others more or less different, and still others VERY different from one another? Words are scalable code.

.............................

Yeah, this is kind of a riff here. Sorry about that; I'm tired & need to get away to something else. Please know that I'm not against people having their own opinion; I'm pointing out that your opinion is contextual, just like everyone's. Those FOUR fingers can be looked at from many different perspectives; they can appear to have different kinds of dimensions, some people don't see 4 fingers, they see a hand, on an arm; if we're interested in what things mean, it might be useful to ask a few questions about those other dimensions, especially before someones demand that people bleed or else.

That doesn't mean that all opinions/"knowledge" is necessarily equally valid, nor invalid, but no one is going to be able to identify how much of which, without beginning with the truth about all of that and the first step is a question, which questions happen also to be one's own personal inoculation against Big Brother, not matter what form fascism takes. That's kind of what my poll is about.

I'm also wondering how many of these people referring to Orwell have actually read him, for real (not what someone else ((another Big Brother by a different "mother"?)) is telling them about Orwell), all of the way through, and also, if they have read Orwell, how much else of literature and such they have read besides, because I just must wonder about opinions about semantics, such as what I'm seeing around here a few times lately could be grounded in anything but a rather narrow acquaintance with the subject matter. Again, all of that has a right to be whatever it is, but that right does not negate my right to ask a few questions about it.

FOUR fingers.

Facts and empirical evidence are not always that. Remember the memory hole? Facts can be re-written or manipulated.

To imagine a better life is to see the reality of now and to ponder a better existence. People kill, people hurt, people are slaves, people will stand on the necks of others to elevate themselves. Is it wrong to see that and imagine a better existence? Is it Orwellian to live your life in peaceful resistance of that reality? To perhaps change the world (futile as it may be) through love and peace in the hopes that the world will rise up and peacefully make a stand?

Neither answer is correct as neither is dependent on the other.

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

a variety of perspectives/angles, none of which negate one another if the means by which those angles are defined, rational empiricism in this case, is shared. All of the angles add up to a more complete truth than any individual perspective does.

I'm not against imagining better, my questions are about how to get there. It's not just going to materialize out of nothing. It has to evolve out of what is, reality. If we make something up completely as a pretty fairy story (like some people say religion does), if we start with something that is not a reality, and try to get to something better from something that isn't real in the first place; or if we actively reject some of the dimensions/perspectives of what is happening; or if we try, but make an authentic error that results in a mistake that leaves a significant aspect/dimension out of the problem of "How do we get from the reality where we are to a reality that is 'better existence'" . . . any of that could make the likelihood of getting to "a better existence" less probable. That would be particularly damaging to those making the effort, so we have responsibilities to get it as close to valid as we can, that is, ALL of the empirical dimensions/aspects of truth that we can identify, so we can use what is happening as best we can to actually support the processes that evolve into a "better existence". Does this not suggest that they, collaborative empirical analysis and imagining a better existence ARE dependent upon one another?

BTW, I like what Orwell has to say about all of this. I just think it gets abused by oversimplification. If we wish to resist that which is "Orwellian" the best place is to begin each of us with ourselves and I am suggesting in this post that identifying Big Brother could begin with whatever the Big Brother dimension is in ourselves. Ignorance is not strength. To use Orwell's motif, there is not one finger, there are four, and "being ignorant" of the other 3 does not mean that they are not there. Those other empirical dimensions/perspectives/angles of the truth are not necessarily evil and one's own are not, exclusively, the only good, especially when one doesn't admit how limited, how biased, one's own perspective can be. This is what I think is being done about PO. It appears that this whole thing has become more about getting the evil Obama, rather than to authentically try to understand how all of this came to be what it is (again in Orwell's story, not 1 finger, not 3, not 5, or 20, but 4 fingers), what the truths are that add up to this moment and then also the different possible things that authentic recognition of this situation COULD lead to, how probable each of those possibilities is and what we best ought to do about all of that.

And if you haven't picked up on it yet, everything I just wrote goes as much for me as I think it does for anyone else, because I know that, though I know what I know, I do not OWN the whole truth. I think it is a grave risk of error for anyone to assume that, e.g. the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, so all of us need the courage to risk respect for DIFFERENT perspectives on this problem and none of that means anyone has to give up one's own truths, just consider how your truths relate to others', as more or less valid dimensions of the same thing, and value that instead of rejecting it out of hand for reasons that are not entirely honest or are at least not as honest as they could be.

that only acknowledges and accepts the new definitions which ignores the commonly held ones while generally restraining yourself from sharing the new definition, it just must be divined and accepted from the new context.

If asked for one of your definitions, the request is ignored though often responded to, often with a pitch for circumstantial principles (aka oxymoron), riddles, and passionate arguments for a privileged position of the status quo (aka if it is what is happening, less harm is created both now and in the future by maintaining it than changing it) based on nothing.

I consider these re-definitions Orwellian, I do not believe it is intentional but it still is what it is.

said definitions are the sole operative ones in existence.

Not only the failure to pretend and accept but the unwillingness to refrain from challenging such.

See no one is stopping you from saying or believing anything, there isn't a consequence being forced on you nor threat of injury to life, limb, or ability to resource you are being challenged and questioned on such not curtailed.

Sounds like a tantrum brought by irrational logic.

Who knows what your definitions are to know if one fits them or not since definitions are whimsical bits of flotsam drifting in the wind meaning what they mean to who they mean it to when they mean it that way on that given day, in that particular place, applied to that particular one...maybe...one can never say and who could be sure if they did but surely things are working out for the best, otherwise how could they be? Though certainly things aren't perfect and perhaps much awry, but who knows and setting things straight may put weight on toes and that can't right, best to leave well enough alone, the universe will change the tone.

Quote one example of your critique and I will evaluate and clarify if I find it necessary.

On one I wrote a fairly long point to point type response, the points of which were un-addressed.

I believe Orwellian was definition a bit ago and I asked you about it, I remember feeling it was not addressed even if it was responded to either.

Not a campaign but perhaps a sign of an emerging pattern that does concern me precisely because we aren't that far apart. From my perspective maybe mostly time, I'm less tolerant of piss on my head being called a spring shower and increasingly believe a big part of winning is being willing to risk losing.