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.
Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
11–20 of 86 posts
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#12A 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 expr…
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.
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#13BNW 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.
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#14BNW 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…
I felt likewise.
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#15BNW 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…
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.
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#16BNW 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…
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.
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#17BNW 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…
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.
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#18And 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.
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Re: Remembering Huxley's “Brave New World”
#20And 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.