of course not. if you can convince me that the truth cannot be told (not on tv, not on the radio, not on the internet etc.), then i will be the first to use the pen or the sword, whatever it takes, to set the truth free.

however, i think that the truth is just too boring, challenging, or disheartening for most. i suspect the truth is out there but people are unwilling to accept it... blaming the truth because it is not welcome or what they expected. thinking to themselves, this must not be truth... for it relegates me to a very average and minor role in life.

Preach on!

A lot of people don't like the truth so they assume it must be a lie. Its the arrogance of the individual who thinks they MUST be correct and is willing to shape the truth into their own image of what the truth should be which is todays enemy of truth.

i wonder what you are talking about when you throw around the word truth in this context. and i do not see how your critique of "todays enemies of truth" could not be applied equally to yourself. care to explain?



second thing:
one of the problems marxists ran into when trying to think about domination is that they tended to see it as shaped by a conspiracy of some kind, which was the mirror image of a corporation before the public offering of stock (1870s). this idea persisted into the 1960s (see the situationists)....but it was outmoded in the 1870s and even more in the 1960s.

so it is curious to see versions of this same idea cropping up from conservative folk, who would argue that because there is no discrete cabal running a mechanism of domination, that neither the mechanism nor the domination exist.

if the model is false (more contemporary analyses of hegemony emphasize the lack of central co-ordinating mechanisms, instead looking at things like patterns of recruitment for professional cadres and mechanisms of internal discipline/censorship)----the conclusions that follow from it are false as well (that there are neither domination nor mechanisms of domination)---in this respect, it was unfortunate that orwell chose to personify in the nebulous figure "big brother" the mechanisms for domination--but it is a novel, which is interesting in some respects, less so in others.

so if there is no mechanism for domination and no discernable coordinating mechanisms... from what would one draw the conclusion that domination is present?

if one is certain that domination is present, how do you separate domination from a more objective reality when no controls are in place to keep truth suppresed. is it not a more rational idea that the person dissatisfied with the way truth is presented while others are not is simply dissatisfied with the truth itself? i know its possible for millions to be wrong and a few right, but such circumstances are always accompanied by a repression of knowledge... something that has yet to be proven to me.

you may argue that fundamental information-dispensing institutions are themselves the dominators... making prohibitions against certain ideas and truths irrelevant. but, i think if one were to propose that, he/she would be obligated to provide:

1. proof that truth was being suppresed.
2. a model that better conveys truth (thus proving that such domination is not endemic to human communication to begin with)

Interesting thread. Yeah, the Newspeak stuff is very relevent. If you can control the language you can control the people. Words like 'Terror' and 'Freedom' seem to have lost all meaning. 'The war on terror' is an oxymoron isnt it?

Again you look at this on a comparative basis. I think the exact opposite. The price to be paid for being such an open society is that we will be vulnerable to random attacks of violence. the only way to fully stop it is to become a police state. I will take the side of freedom. Freedom is not comparable, it is an absolute. You can't compare our freedom to another country. You are either free or not. Speaking of consolidation, do you not see this occuring more and more everyday. How many different companies run the media we read? Not many. The consolidation occuring here is much more hidden and effective, because the masses do not realize till it is too late.

still dont know what you mean by truth in this context--i really dont---so to an extent discussion stalls out there.

when i said that there is no conspiracy, no discrete cabal pulling the strings behind the scenes and that could be invoked in order to show or demonstrate hegemony was being exersized, i meant only that. i didnt say anything (i dont think at least) about mechanisms..only that they could neither be proven as what they are or disproven as what they are based on the presence or absence of a cabal.

it seems self-evident that television is a fundamental mechanism for opinion management, for setting and controlling the parameters of "legitimate" debate---it seems self-evident that conservatives have been much better than anyone else in reducing their viewpoints to soundbites and in thereby having disproportionate access to the various forums for pseudo-debate that work as a substitute for meaningful debate in american pseudo-democracy. it is also pretty clear that this same medium operates to exclude/trivialize opposition.
all this without a particular cabal.
for television to occupy this role, it has to lean on (and presuppose) modes of sociability--that one acquires through the various institutions that shape you as a functional subject--these modes of sociablity are what enable a cultural system in whcih individual actors dominate themselves...which is a way of saying that as much as i dislike george w bush, he in no way invented this--his adminsitration simply exploited features of it in order to legitimate itself on the basis of paranoia, and to extend authoritarian tendencies already working in a particular direction.

it is the combination of the far right in power and the far right in a position of such influence over the terms of debate that makes this situation--2004, now--one that is geared toward authoritarian rule. a curious kind of authoritarian rule, one in which is seems mandatory to talk about how free and open things are. i was in a seminar like this once, in france: it ran like a kingdom in which a royal decree required that all subject talk about direct democracy. the contradiction of form and content is easier managed than you might think.

This turned into a pretty good thread.

I wish more were like this.

by questioning whether or not things are true i think we mean: does our perception of our own freedom and the events reported by authority model reality?

in 1984 the citizens of Oceania (i think that was the mega-country's name anyway) were certain that they were free and that a valuable war was being waged. no one seemed to notice that the news coverage was being changed, history being replaced. except for the occasional prisoner being paraded around, the war was just something on tv even though it was the goal of nearly every one's existence.

that is the context in which truth is being discussed. the characters in the book were experiencing a life in which a hood was kept over the heads of citizens who were sure they were informed of the reality of their existence. when we (or at least, i) talk about truth in this thread, we're asking whether or not we, in our current situation, are being subjected to a similar ruse and, if so, the nature and degree of it.

Absolutely perfect thread explaination. Excelent work, irateplatypus. Yes, it was Oceania where Winston Smith lived.

The main idea is that we have to respect the power that technology brings and be wary of who wields that power. It is easy to become dazzled by the complexity and wonder of the modern world, but don't allow it's dazzle to blind you from truth.

Now obviously the situation we find ourselves in is not quite as black and white as the Big Brother vs. the Brotherhood, but it is possible that we are headed in that direction. It's good to keep this in mind as we hear political leaders like Bush say: "Let us never tolderate outrageuos conspiricy theories, concerning the attack of Spet. the 11th. Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves; away from the guilty." Oddly enough, we have yet to see any evidence of Ossama Bin Laden's connection to the attack on 9/11.

It's just a matter of keeping you perspective, learning facts for yourself, and challenging those who willingly lie to their own selfish ends. IMO, of course.

I would argue that you can and should compare the freedoms in America to the freedoms (or lackthereof) found elsewhere for a balanced picture. You say, "You are either free or not" what does this mean? What kind of freedoms do you desire that you're not getting in America? You speak of this monumental concept of Absolute Freedom, but what does this mean? Do you wish to be free to grab a woman on the street and have sex with her in the backseat of your car? Do you wish to be free to walk into a bank and ask the teller to fill up a sack of money for you? Do you wish for the right to be automatically given a six figure salary upon completion of high school? There is no such thing as absolute freedom, it is an impossible concept. People from around the world don't flock to America because they want to partake of a repressive and closed society. I ask you and others who attack America on this point: Precisely what freedoms are you being denied living in America?!?

You mentioned earlier in this thread that you are Arab-American, and that you've been hassled a bit at airports. In this post-911 time, don't you think it reasonable and justifiable to expect such scrutiny? Look what just happened to Cat Stevens, and he's a rich and famous rockstar. I myself would expect such treatment if I was an Arab-American. I wouldn't like it, but I would expect it and understand the reason for it. I understand it might be an undignified and embarrassing situation, but its a few questions and you're on your way.

Yes its true that Big Business runs media outlets. It's also true that you have a maniacal corp of overzealous journalists keeping their eye on such companies, and won't hesitate for a millisecond to call them out when they have the story (and even when they don't).

I've been hassled a bit at airports and I'm lilly white.

No I dont expect such treatment in a "free" society. No one should. Should African Americans living in poverty not allowed to be up in arms about their dire situation because, hey, at least they aren't slaves anymore? Should women accept lower pay, because, hey, at least they are getting hired for similar opportunities. It's a known statistic, unfortunately, that more African Americans are involved, or at least jailed, for crimes proportionally to Caucasians, so should they accept racial profiling? I disagree with that logic.

You mention denial of freedom. Freedom is not the Patriot Act, freedom is not Guantanamo Bay, freedom is not attacking countries on false pretenses under the veil of freedom and getting away with it, freedom is not damning someone for being of a certain race, religion or creed, regardless of the situation...

"At least we aren't as corrupt as Russia." i dont buy it. This country is sliding in the wrong direction and while I understand your points, don't buy it when we proclaim that we are "the land of the free"

As is written in the lyrics of "Grievance" by Pearl Jam

"Break the innocent when they're proud.
Raise the stakes then bring 'em down.
If we fail to obey...if we fail to obey."

Civil Disobedience is seen as anti-American, discourse is anti-American. Liberal thinking is anti-American, Democrats are labeled Communists or Socialists. Nice words that spark emotion with the general public. This is the type of thinking being displayed more and more everyday. "Groupthink." Bush states he wants Justices on the Supreme Court who agree with him. "Groupthink". As "Groupthink" continues to pervade our society, our freedoms will lessen and that is what I believe to be occuring right under our noses.

I think ultimately you see the same thing but like to believe it isnt too bad b/c relatively we are still pretty good, but I don't care about the other countries policies. If we are to claim to be a truly sovereign nation than we must make every attempt to live up to that statement.

It's the new McCarthyism.

"Mr Bush, have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame?"


Mr Mephisto

Social reality is always a consensual hallucination. Outside of scientific constants there is no singular "truth" that humans can grasp or express without resorting to faith. Each of our environments, experiences, educations and assumptions creates a personal "reality," although social constructs ensure that there is a great deal of similarity between neighbors, countrymen, etc. As such, our own perceptions and the perceptions handed down to us by whomever we accept authority from definitely shapes "reality."

This country has a loooong history of civil disobedience, and it prides itself on such, and I think it should. One could argue that tangible change has manifest itself through civil disobedience in America more than in any other country in the world. It also has a long history of dissident dialogue. Its not perfect, and no system is, but its been a tangible progression. Woman's suffrage and their subsequent right to vote, african americans moving from cotton fields to corporate board rooms, latin americans in the White House Cabinet. American history is unique among nations; it is a young country in the world adjusting and adapting to its growing pains. One of the central themes in the US Constitution, and the reason for its greatness today, is in its edict of civil rights and the importance placed on the individual.

Freedom of the press, freedom to assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom of speech. For all it's warts, there is no other country in the world, now or in past history, that has offered its citizens the breadth and scope of civil rights and freedoms that America does.

I agree 100% with you Powerclown and I dont want that to change, and would in fact like to see even more done. This country has a great past to hang its hat on, mostly, and I would like to see that continue even moreso as we and this country continue to evolve. I see warning signs of trouble through this country's actions over the last four years, that is where you and I differ. I started this thread to see where others stand on this. Pretty divided, as is normal in this country! The success in controlling the masses is to manipulate them into believing that the actions of their government are in the best interests of its people, all the while the truth is a small group of people are actually looking to instill their doctrine and dominance on the masses implicitly, in order to better retain power and control. I dont want to wait until we reach that boiling point to start speaking out. These warning signs that I see today, however small they may appear, create enough concern for me to want to speak up.

thanks, cthulu, for the last post because it explains what i was asking about with the notion of truth that was being thrown around earlier....if your position obtains, as i think it does, then the manipulation of premises that enable people to order their sense of being-in-the-world is a powerful tool for domination--if the population is largely credulous--uncritical, accepting...

it is as a function of this type of manipulation of premises that i see something authoritarian about contemporary conservative discourse in that it appears to function to seal its constituency off from a descriptive relation to the work and to short circuit modes of critique, both from those who operate outside that framework, and for those who work within it relative to the frame itself.

you can see these features clearest in two areas: the dominant conservative discourse itself, which has been deployed full-blown since 911, and in conservative philosophies of education, which seem to privlege a reverence toward a largely mythical construct of american history, conflated with a fundamentalist notion of religious faith, and thereby tries to repress possibilities for a critical relation to the world in kids who are unfortunate enough to pass through this kind of educational system.


irate:
the "suppression of truth" problem in orwell's novel is something staged by orwell himself--i think because he relayed the content of the novel from an exterior veiwpoint in a dickens-like mode. so his position--and yours as reader--can be clear, detached, etc.

which points to a limitation in using 1984 as a jump-off for any meaningful critique of what might be happening in real time---since the framework that is at issue in this thread, for example, is the same that shapes how we operate, detachment in the way orwell stages it is not possible, on the other hand, that we function within a shared frame of reference in very divergent ways politically indicates that there are possibilities for reflexivity, for thinking about the environment that shapes how we operate, and different ways of viewing what we think about--so the authoritarian tendencies i see in contemporary america is a matter of degree, something partially implemented, a tendency.

what i find unsettling in this tendency is its invisibility for significant segments of the population---lilke any effective form of domination, this one speaks a language of "common sense" using categories like "nation" to generate adherence....in tandem with the comments above about conservative discourse and educational views.

What you described could be the definition of the term "Government". Any government. Every government that has ever been and will ever be. It is a fascinating subject.

Hmm, I would interpret his statement as refering to those who have inordinate amounts of control over government, not the government itself.

Correct. But where the problem comes in is that people have forgotten that civil disobedience carrys a pricetag. "Disobedience" is synonymous with "breaking the law", and that does indeed carry penalties. What cheeses me off are the younger generation that think they can commit acts of civil disobedience without getting smacked by the repercussions, and that such lack of consequences is their RIGHT.

If you decide to practice civil disobedience, that's A-OK by me. But you should expect to get your ass beaten and thrown in jail, and not bitch about it when it happens. Hey, if it was good enough for MLK, it's good enough for you. ;)

Did John Edwards really say that? I presume it was before Reeve died, but all the same...

Silly person.


Mr Mephisto

yeah, John Edwards actually said that. It's not even a paraphrase, it's a direct quote.

Wow. Imagine that!

A politican who says something stupid. It's a good job that doesn't preclude you from being President, eh?

:)

At least we agree it was a silly thing to have said.


Mr Mephisto

This is just a rebuttal to the tired argument that "if you think we have it bad go to __(insert 3rd world country)_________". Just cause they have it worse/we have it better does not make it right. Bush and Kerry are both lesser of two evil candidates, the victor doesn't become right when he wins. Say as we inch closer and trad on a little liberty everytime something happens we will eventually end up in the fire. You don't jump into a swimming pool if you don't want the shock of realizing how fucking cold it is. You ease your way in until your all the way there and its normal and find. So we are going to tread on a little liberty at a time to the point where we are soaked in a pool of government regulation that runs every facet of our life.

That may be the day you envy a third world country. With the technology and resources of the United States it would certainly make some militant junkie keeping you in your home. In the US with the amount of media we have it would be an endless stream of shit shoved into your head, the technology to track your every move. They won't even need the guard at the corner. It will infest your home and your life.

This is not where we are at now, but a future possibly. Its The Patriot Act now. Maybe Communication Regulation for Freedom Act next, the Public Disarment for Liberty Amendmant, and the Embedded Identification Act of 2025.

If cival disobedience didn't have consequences it wouldn't be very disobedient now would it o.0. Non violent disobedience is a productive form to institute change. I mean what is a night in jail is nothing really when it comes to supporting a cause you are passionate about. While you are violating the law civil disobedience isn't looked at as inherently wrong by society as rather a welcome part of it weather you are involved or not.

Yeah, taken out of context to change its meaning... :rolleyes:

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...rds.stem.cell/

roachboy,

this really isn't a literary criticism thread... but the perspective given in 1984 seems to be different from the typical dickens method. the reader isn't given much of any information except the protagonist's direct experiences. i wouldn't go as far as you did to discount our ability to recognize orwellian constructs as they happen.

for those who have been following this thread... i think 1984 has not provided a very good outline our progress (or regress). while it's an interesting piece of fiction, Huxley produced a novel far more relevant to postmodernity.

quite honestly, i think it's a copout to discount so many critical observations based on the idea that truth in such social situations is not knowable like cthulu and roach appear to do. that kind of argument is always employed to temper the propositions of another, never a lense in which ones own opinions are viewed. although i won't begin to refute the concept in its entirety (i believe it to have real validity), the application of such principles are often too crude.

How does that extra clause change it's meaning? Edwards is saying that if John Kerry is elected President, the crippled will walk.

The subject of the sentence is "the work" (i.e. stem cell research), not John Kerry. This is the stuff you learn in 2nd Grade. :rolleyes:

Heh. All you've got is a sentence diagram argument? Edwards said that if Kery is elected president, the crippled will walk. That's bullshit. If Bush or Cheney said the same thing, you'd be all over it.

No, I wouldn't. Evidently, I put a much higher value on intellectual honesty than you.

Although your assumptions about my own beliefs are quite incorrect (I apply my beliefs to my own life more so than anyone else's), I think that you're missing the point. Given that that the concept of "reality" is a relative social construct it becomes easier to understand how forces of dominion or authority can be accepted without any concious understanding that these forces exist at all. This is "true" regardless of whether one lives in a totalitarian state or a relatively free democratic society.

irate:
on genre policing (this is not a literary criticism thread)---given that the whole thread was spawned around an attempt to use orwell's novel as a metaphor for understanding (rather, beginning to understand--staging might be a better word) something of the conditions that obtain in the states right now, it seems fair game to talk about the text from which that metaphor is derived. if you cannot do that, then the metaphor is worthless as an analytic device, the activity of mapping from one genre to another a waste of time.

what i meant when i equated orwell to a dickens novel is that it is told in more or less classic realist fashion, with you are a reader put in the position of transcendent spectator made privy to orwell's staging of oceania and his reason for doing so at once. so you are outside the main action, having it interpreted for you as you move through the text. your relation to that text as a reader and your relation to the political evironment in which you find yourself is therefore fundamentally different...at which point my argument would converge with cthulu's immediately above.

in a better, more democratic space, it would be obvious that politics is a variant of fundamental philosophy--it can and should involve consideration of yourself, your relation to the world and the modes of posing questions to and about any and all of the relations implied by these terms. trying to limit the kinds of questions that can be posed and the type of materials used to pose those questions is symptomatic of the impoverished state of discourse in the states--which itself is an index of and device for legitimating (by making critique difficult to impossible for many) of precisely the domination that we are talking about.

Well, I'm afraid I'm actually with Hammer on this one. The quotation, or actually misquotation, is entirely misleading.

In the sig it is started with a capital "When Kerry is President...", implying a complete sentence.

I shouldn't really be surprised at this kind of blatant dishonesty on the part of Bush-lackeys... :) And to think that I took this quote at face value. Silly me.


Mr Mephisto