If the Beatles played the same song a thousand times or however many times it was played, it would be played differently a thousand times and played differently each time — though the ear or whatever instrument one was using to experience what they were playing could not always notice a difference, the difference was there and with sufficient accuracy of instrumentation, the difference could be noticed.
To Beatles fans, Beatles cover bands sound similar to the Beatles but are not the Beatles. Later, the songs generated by this one simple rule were transcribed by other people into the reality of written music through the complex language rule- following of musical notation and its complex semantics and syntax. Was it really an F, or should have Martin written it as an E? The point is that for those who do not care such as me, in terms of language, it is both an E and an F and is neither; it is what the arranger or producer says it is.
He, She, It, or Whatever God is, would have to listen to the Beatles and play each interpretation of this song as they played it and then repeat it perfectly, which God as God can most certainly do. If God wanted to listen to the Beatles play further interpretations of this song so as to play them as they played, to hear all these interpretations played by the Beatles, God would have to resurrect the Beatles in this life, listen, and listen forever.
We all know, that is not going to happen; it only supposedly happened to one person who happened to be the Son of God. As great as they may be, I am fairly sure that even Beatles worshipers are not awaiting the resurrection of the Beatles. Even God has favorites it appears, but none of them are the Beatles. Do not need the Beatles for that. Oh well, hopefully you get the point. Furthermore, once the Almighty has learned the notation, the Almighty can change the perfect F to a perfect E and play that perfectly or the reverse and so forth that way.
In a Godless universe, even God needs musical notation to be God without need of dealing with pesky individuals. Heck, God, as could any producer or arranger as a god, could just write the music; enjoy the beauty of the writing; and then stick it in a drawer and never play it which might be something God has done with this universe. Conceptually, this drawer music is the most perfect of music, none of the imperfections individual musicians throw-in by playing it.
No musicians needed. No need to listen nor even to play music. Creating a conceptually timeless physical model of music, which normally exists in reality only in fleeting moments of time, is the power of the wordgame language of musical notation. Allowing the writer of the music not only the power for their Self to act as reader but also the power for making Others who read the music rule-follow and act as the writer wants: to create in the image of the Self.
Such is the power of the language of musical notation. This is just a tip of its power. For the great artists, the power of music goes beyond music. There is another famous historical anecdote about the great Mozart involving his dislike of a singer named Adriana Ferrarese del Bene.
She had a habit of dropping down her head on low notes and raising it on high notes, a habit the great Mozart noticed. With great artist talent, comes the power to transform a cruel act of bullying into high art. So on and so forth, ultimately all art is propaganda.
With great artistic talent, one can transform high art into the greater art of Party propaganda. I do not know enough about the form of life that is music and its wordgame to say who the Inner Party, Outer Party, and Prols of its reality are.
The Beatles most definitely were born Prols and stayed and died Prols. Like Supreme Thomas, they were Prols with benefits — a lot of money and the benefits and power it brings — but still Prols. Were Martin and are other producers and arrangers Outer or Inner Party? I would say Outer. Always remember the Party is not a physical entity nor does it depend on any physical individual for its Power; all individuals are expendable before it.
It has no cathedrals but it does have such creations as copyright. For various reasons contemplated in other Rules, just as the algorithms of computer wordgames are becoming copyrighted, eventually the Party will soon decide to make its so-called scientific algorithms copyrightable as a means to control their power and to maintain their ownership within the Inner Party; there is no substantive or pragmatic difference between computer algorithms that write music and those that write virology models, whatever nominal difference there is in habit will be gone by As emphasized in subsequent Rules, it is never in the interest of the Party to hold on to concepts that no longer work; the Party is a continuance of history and an affirmation of life not a dead-end nor a burial ground for any progress other than of those envious of its Power.
Whether it is an E or an F, it is limited in its possibilities by the reality of what the Beatles played or what anyone can play. There is not in life an actual infinite number of possibilities between E and F, there are just uncountable amounts. The universe is not indifferent to our limitations it created for us just to our life. Just as it limits our life by death, it limits what we can hear and play and even if we can hear or play.
For the Party truly to be the god of this life, it needs a language in which the infinite is real. That language is aesthetics. Such requirement means any purely pragmatic languages are out, such as old school science. Scientists can talk about infinity in the same way poets and mathematicians can talk about it, but in the end they deal with uncountable quantities not infinite ones.
As profoundly beautiful as the word sounds, eventually the language of old school science is limited by reality and not by your state of mind. The Leap to Faith for admission to the Inner Party is made through languages not limited by states of mind that are limited by reality. Do not believe that aesthetics are limited to obviously poetic language such as nothingness, infinity, entropy, subconscious, and other fictions.
One thing for sure, the universe does not care how you play it or even if you play it. The possibilities are countless: varying from not playing it at all to playing it absolutely regardless of the circumstances.
In a Godless universe, the Inner Party plays this First Amendment language — and any language — as they want to play it, if and when they want to play it. The Party is not limited to playing it like any individual member of the Party plays it, thus it does not require a resurrection of any writer of the First Amendment nor of any speaker of any language regardless of whether they were Inner Party, Outer Party, or of any individuals or groups of individuals.
Nor is it limited by any rules or rule-following to playing it as any rules or rule-following require, it is the Party that makes the rules and the required rule-following. So even then, God would not be able to play it perfectly and timelessly except for a moment before the rules and rule-following change. Historically, this concept has been a grammatical one of syntax, sometimes of semantics, that has not presented much of a problem in the struggle between High, Middle, and Low.
Some languages such as Chinese, Estonian, and Finnish have no gender. English has — or more accurately now had — two: masculine and feminine. There are languages that have more than three. For example, according to some linguists, Chechen has six masculine, feminine, and four other miscellaneous classes ; the Rwanda-Rundi family of languages has sixteen; Ganda has ten people, long objects, animals, miscellaneous objects, large objects and liquids, small objects, languages, pejoratives, infinitives, mass nouns ; Shona has twenty singular and plural are supposedly considered separate genders by these speakers ; Swahili has eighteen singular and plural are also considered separate genders by these speakers.
Whatever, because semantics and syntax are purely a question of use and usefulness, a social group can have as many or as little gender syntax or semantics as they find useful or which they use. There are plenty of individuals who are infertile of all sexes, a rare few who have both male and female reproductive organs that do not reproduce, and some who have the other holy grail concept of DNA — both xy and xx chromosomes or neither — which researches love to find hermaphroditism and true hermaphroditism but these terms may or may not be acceptable at present — my pragmatic language may not be up-to-date to the normative requirements for the English wordgame which is constantly changing these days and which does help my point.
There is no reason pragmatically why we cannot have biological sexes consisting of male, female, infertile, hermaphrodite, hermaphrodita, or whatever else scientists believe would be of use and useful in their work.
As usual, I am lost on having a holistic understanding of the Will to Power dispute at issue here, but essentially how it works is that: 1 oppressive society forces upon oppressed individuals their self-identity; 2 this is evil and not the natural order of reality; 3 individuals by the natural order ought to be able to decide or create their own self-identity; 4 ergo, individuals not society ought to decide their gender. No, the Party plays it for a pragmatic reason: it is fun to watch the Prols arguing over what is good and evil while the Party stands by and lets them fight among themselves as an exercise of its Power — until it wants the fighting to stop.
The universe does not care how many genders we have or even if we have any. The Party does not care how many genders we have or if we have any. The question is how many does our collective mind and state of mind want; this is a question of how many does the Inner Party and Party want. I suspect by , with the arrival of sexbots, test tube reproduction, and designer babies and a largely infertile population, instead of having multiple genders, we will have just one: neuter.
Sounds fine by me. For now, battles between the sexes, genders, or whatever is useful to the Party for keeping the Prols fighting among themselves and peaceful in their assigned place in society; this struggle is useful to the Party just as are all the other real and fabricated normative battles being fought at present varying from agism to racism and onto xenophobia.
However, by the need for many of these battles will end. Just as reality ended the possibility of physical rebellion, by , the Party should be able to end the possibility of conceptual rebellion — unless of course the Party needs a conceptual struggle to occur in order to keep Prols in their required social class. There is a whole universe out there waiting to be discovered, explored, and conquered; the Party cannot waste time on nonsense nominal battles once they are done having fun with the minds of the Prols.
As the Pope has its infallibility doctrine, so does the Party. This conceptual exemplification is enough for now on this Rule; there will be more in latter Rules as one should be holistically contemplating these Rules anyway. Hopefully, once you appreciate and understand the aesthetics, your Will to Power ambition for perfecting the aesthetics of language will take over, and your language will be one with the Party as its language is one with the reality it creates through models of reality that are more real than reality.
To paraphrase Orwell and Sinclair Lewis, all art is propaganda but not all propaganda is art. The philosopher Feyerabend once whined about the Doublethink of science: Let them have their belief, if it gives them joy.
Let them also give talks about that. He says he touches the infinite! Use Doublethink on toddlers, children, teenagers, adults, seniors, and on the dead. Use it on whomever you want or need to use it on. Use it for the sake of using it. Most important, use it to pass on the Party to the future and to progress the Party from its dead to its living so it never dies. If you are a Prol, most likely you still have a conscious, as Feyerabend apparently did at least in his latter life, but you need to get over it.
As later Rules will bring out in more detail, having doubt through the emotive form of life which society calls a conscious or in any equivalent form of intellectual doubt is a fatal weakness. This weakness will come out in your language and reveal you as the Prol you were born and will remain unless you change. Intellectual doubt comes from the power of reason as a tool for solving practical problems of physical survival in reality; i.
Scientific American, Vol. This power of reality creates the delusion that it is an attribute of the ultimate Power. Power controls physical power through conceptual power not the reverse. The intellectual doubt aspect is readily eliminated with knowing and intentional practice once you honestly make the Leap to Faith and the Commandments and you begin honestly to apply them to creating a new reality in the image of the Party. Eventually, your Doublethink will become natural and instinctive.
Reason can describe how to catch fish, but it cannot tell you whether you ought to catch fish. As you contemplate and use the Power in language, you will soon understand logic to be only a tool for preserving truth not for providing any truth. Intellectual reasoning is logically valid if it is impossible to start with true premises and reach a false conclusion.
The fatal fault in this tool is that one must have true premises with which to begin and to preserve. Reason cannot give you these required true premises. The beauty of logic is that if you start with false premises, your reasoning will always be valid — starting with false premises logically means your arguments will never be invalid because it will be logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. So, use logic to preserve whatever truth the Party wants to preserve even if it is false.
Do not have intellectual doubt in your practical reasoning because the intellectual doubt is not intellectual nor practical when it comes to Power. Intellectual doubt is a sure sign you lack the intellectual power to be in the Inner Party. Eliminating the emotive conscious is a little more difficult. Most, even Inner Party members, do not eliminate it entirely but control it to the point where it is worthless. Any individual who affirms life as an individual will have this disconnect and thus a conscious.
Inner Party members may seem like psychopaths but they are not. Inner Party members must know life as it is thus most will have a conscious but control it through their Leap to Faith which will give you an Acceptance of this Heart of Darkness.
As described by the Leap to Faith, the affirmation of life sought by the conscious eventually leads to the collective conscious creating the Party. So, the conscious is not a weakness in your mind or state of mind; it is a strength that has done its job by creation of the Party and the form of life of the Inner Party. Having done its job, it must now be controlled.
Think of it as the tonsils or appendix of your mind. Control it, do not let it control you by applying its strength through your Will to Power to the Power of the Party. Ultimately, neither the individual nor any god or God that created the individual has any value for individual life; death is the only ultimate for the individual. It is the Party that eliminates this Heart of Darkness by the only way it can be done: affirming life by eliminating the individual.
Embrace Doublethink so you can control it. You must talk with confidence knowing the Power is in you and you are in the Power. This is the case not only for admission into the Inner Party but for staying and surviving there. Be steadfast in your Faith and always keep the Commandments in mind. When in doubt, I suggest recitation of the Commandments. Embrace Doublethink so you can control it to go beyond Newspeak to deconstruction and to its holy grail that is dialectical holistic language.
Newspeak though relying upon Doublethink was limited in its Power because it was used only for political speech. It was created as a technique by which politicians could talk to political herds about convoluted concepts without actually getting into the concepts.
It was a language made up of what society now calls sound bites, slogans, blurs, trends, trending, and so forth. Newspeak is a limitation of Doublethink necessary at one time when the thought of political herds could lead to violent revolution. Just as the threat of violent revolution has been eliminated by the Party, by this limitation of Doublethink to politics and to political herds should also be eliminated. For this perfection to be achieved, no one should notice Doublethink as anything other than thinking: 1 no one speaking in Doublethink, except for the Inner Party is aware of their speaking it; 2 Doublethink language as language becomes reality and thought.
Remember Doublethink is a process whereby the subject is expected to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as true. It does not negate logic but is an extension of logic to practical reasoning and is an empowering of it into a form of life wordgame instead of just being a wordgame. Logic should not create doubt for you, there is nothing to doubt here, just something for you knowingly to use and control for the benefit of the Party.
Logic reaches perfection when the subject does not even realize there are two mutually contradictory beliefs being accepted. However, even among uneducated Prols, a certain amount of mental if not physical violence is required for acceptance of this incongruity, and while accepting it, they will still be aware of its existence.
Perfection in Doublethink is reached when contradiction to the point of being outright nonsense in thought and belief is accepted not only without threat of violence but with casual acceptance so natural that one does not even comprehend there is any contradiction. Usually, at this point, logicians, rationalists, and other so-called realists would start dumping upon the wordgame of post-modernism as an example of Doublethink and assume it is an evil.
However, this would be a bad example as many of the Party who play at this form of life know and make the mistake of honestly admitting they are playing not only a wordgame but even just a game.
Such admission is a mistake that must be eliminated by They even give their wordgame a specific name by which they admit what they are doing: deconstruction. Through deconstruction any and all facts can be used to support any and all normative ideology — it is Doublethink at its most obvious and thus not at its best. Even the Inner Party must not see Doublethink unless they want to see it, they must think it knowingly and intentionally, but they cannot refer to it as some kind of heuristic technique for reasoning.
No, it is reasoning; as language is thought, Doublethink is thought. It is the perfection of rational and logical reasoning practically applied by the Party to life as an affirmation of life. For example, Doublethink perfection is exemplified by the brilliant aesthetics of the Outer Party geniuses Avi Loeb, who is from my alma mater Harvard it is a miracle I survived that place without putting a bullet in my head , and Daniel Hoffman, a coder turned philosopher of mind.
The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations. Loeb used the same brilliant techniques and Doublethink logic to conclude from his physics lab experiments that our universe was created in a lab.
Yeah, Doc, it was not your experiments and conclusions that were created in a lab, it was the universe in which the lab exists that was created in a lab! This is like the old school logic anecdote that seems fallacious but is actually logically valid and probably sound reasoning of: If something has been created by God, then everything has been created by God.
Though this Doublethink violates subsequent Rules requiring humbleness by Inner Party members which will keep these geniuses out of the Inner Party, these are still examples of Doublethink perfection: 1 no one is aware of any contradiction in their language or thought; 2 language has become reality in addition to being thought.
Analytic philosophy with its pretend emphasis on logic is a better example of how Doublethink can become so natural and instinctive that no one notices. Yes, by the beauty and power of logic, in the entire universe and in all possible universes, everything and anything is either a duck or not a duck.
So, is a duck conscious? Here is where the beauty and power of Doublethink enter. Consider the following writing in analytic philosophy randomly taken 16 Massey, Gerald J. This entry will focus on identifying such principles without shying away from the neural details. The notion of neuroscientific explanation here conceives of it as providing informative answers to concrete questions that can be addressed by neuroscientific approaches. Accordingly, the theories and data to be considered will be organized around constructing answers to two questions see section 1.
Specific Consciousness: How might neural properties explain what the content of a conscious state is? A challenge for an objective science of consciousness is to dissect an essentially subjective phenomenon.
Introspection thus provides a fundamental way, perhaps the fundamental way, to track consciousness. That said, consciousness pervasively influences human behavior, so other forms of behavior beyond introspective reports provide a window on consciousness. How to leverage disparate behavioral evidence is a central issue. The above makes sense because both the writer and reader assume that because it sounds pretty, it must be pretty.
This entry will focus on identifying such imaginary principles without shying away from the real details. There is a gulf between Saudi Arabia and Iran; there is no more a gulf between the brain and consciousness than there is between real and imaginary numbers or between North and South Dakota except nominally — in the beauty of words.
The brain and consciousness are different wordgames, as different as real and imaginary numbers. Another example from the scientific wordgame is the form of life known as genetics and its gulf separation from actual life: RPA is a single-stranded DNA binding protein that physically associates with the BLM complex.
We investigated the 17 Here is a fun example of the beauty of Doublethink that you can contemplate holistically in preparation for Rule VI. If they really wrote it up as a description of what they did and found, there would be no words or sentences; instead, the description of what they did would consist of algorithms of bookmaking assumptions, probabilities, and then odds.
If they did that, they would be glorified bookmakers not scientists, which they are but no one wants to admit or know that.
As with the geniuses Hoffman and Loeb and the majority of Technological Society so-called science, their models are more real than reality and thus must appear in language as more aesthetically pleasing and beautiful than the ugliness of reality or of the ugliness of their models and of bookmaking for power. In the end, all models are wrong; no one is going to admit this truth. They need Doublethink as much as the Party needs Doublethink. Unlike the above example of brilliant aesthetic use of language, as an Inner Party member, you would not have the luxury of fooling yourself, of ignoring Doublethink in your language.
Quite the opposite, unlike Outer Party minds such as Hoffman and Loeb, you have to be aware of the nonsense you speak or otherwise you will be the one oppressed by the language instead of the oppressor. Bachrati, I. Hickson, and G. You must know Doublethink is there but not believe Doublethink is there. There should not be any oppressor and oppressed, just language and its reality.
Beliefs are simply rules for action upon the passive. As an Inner Party member or as one seeking admission into the Inner Party, you must know Doublethink because this is one of the means by which you and the Party exercise Power; however, you must not believe in it yourself.
Here is an example of how you control its power without giving it power over yourself. So, for now, the Party allows and sees no problem with the genius Hoffman knowing reality to be made up of material evolutionary mental representations.
It has no problem with this because the Party knows that if the Party desires and starts to work on him, he would eventually make and most likely will eventually know reality to be a pantheist Buddhist or Hindu spiritual world — which seems to be what coders who love mathematical gaming such as he does eventually come to know; whatever, he will know what the Party wants him to know. You, as an Inner Party member, would only know and believe in Power as an end- in-itself.
Repeat: reality is death, the Party is life. Once you understand these basic concepts, the only way to make it natural for you is by experience.
Constantly, intentionally, and knowingly speak and write Doublethink fully aware of all its nonsense so it is second nature to you. It is important that you speak and write it so as to impress upon you the truth that language is reality and that words are thought.
Do not let intellectual doubt sneak into this exercise hinting that perhaps not words but the meanings of words are thought. Enjoy the Power, do not limit it. And how will the internet age develop? Will digital life be able to free us from top-down culture and create a decentralized world that places the human person at the center?
Or are we to be ruled by an automated Stasi that never sleeps, never feels remorse, and never considers the cost? Restoring America. Jacques Ellul's technological nightmare by James McElroy. James McElroy is a novelist and essayist based in New York. More Washington Examiner. The K cartel is holding children hostage Max Eden. Thursday January 13, The teachers unions are unreformable, but they can be disempowered.
Comedy goes viral Kyle Smith. Old-Fashioned fixins Eric Felten. In November , the Princeton Alumni Weekly took note that at the recent trouncing of Harvard — the Tigers beat the Crimson 47 to 7 — members of the class of had upped their own game, drinkingwise. Book of Love Alex Perez. With The Women I Love, the Italian novelist, whose two previous novels have been translated into English, has written a bawdy and melancholic novel about the perpetual struggle between the masculine and the feminine, with a surprisingly deft, yet harsh, touch.
Then and Now: Schooling Grant Addison. After five days of impromptu school closures, the city of Chicago and its public school district finally came to an agreement last week with the Chicago Teachers Union on a plan that would reopen schools for in-person learning. This obvious pretext for continuing a yearslong pseudo-home vacation was, quite reasonably, rejected by Chicago Public Schools, at which point the brave, heroic teachers of Chicago simply chose not to show up for work, forcing a week of closures.
Joe Biden's Scranton problem Daniel Allott. Even many of his supporters think he's not up to a second term. Want more? Advanced embedding details, examples, and help! This is undoubtedly one of the most important books of the twentieth century, and if you accept its thesis you won't be able to look at the political milieu in the same way ever again. If you agree with it and it doesn't change the way you look at things, you haven't grasped its importance.
Most political theorists take ideology to be a central point from which "real world" consequences emanate. In other words, a Communist or libertarian ideology in practical use will produce a particular type society and individual divorced from the actual technical workings of the society.
Liberals and conservatives both speak of things in such a manner as if ideology is the prima facie cause of existence - but as Ellul shows in painstaking detail, this is wrong. What almost everyone fails to grasp is the pernicious effect of technique and its offspring, technology on modern man. So also with technology we have the choice to examine our reasons for the kinds of technology we develop. Ellul, unfortunately, advocates a kind of determinism that accepts the inevitability of the bad uses of technology outweighing the good.
Certainly the potential for misuse is there, but should a religious perspective condemn technology wholesale, or rather, encourage the development of religious values, which then become the foundation for free choices in the free market?
Out of the frying pan into the fire. Not quite alone in the wilderness. Terrorists or freedom fighters: What's the difference?
The Principle of Subsidiarity. How Christianity Created Capitalism. Power Corrupts. Human Capital and Poverty.
0コメント