|
|
| |
Forum Overview
::
Dead Trees
|
| |
|
by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 12:11am PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
I read it straight through in one sitting off a website starting at 10AM this morning. It was pretty good. Not quite what I was expecting but still very good.
I understand now why so many people claim that I'm ripping it off despite my having formed all my ideas re: ideal economic system before reading the book.
The thing that struck me while reading it was entirely a personal matter - I identified far more strongly with the post-betrayl Winston than the idealist-Winston. In fact, going all the way back to my psychotic episode a few years back I've felt numb precisely like that despite mood shiftings and episodic manic states. I guess my point is that I wonder if that event broke me in some fundamental way - rolling on the floor screaming in abject terror at hallucinations I was powerless to push away anymore than you can push a way a cloud. It wouldn't have to be a prolonged torture - a sudden and significant neurochemical imbalance could render catastrophic changes with little difference in the final resulting grey matter.
Enough bullshit, though. Great read, you can find it on the web in full in HTML with just a bit of searching. For those wondering if the Party represents everything I hate about the United States increasingly sliding into a protectionist oligarchy - yes, but it's an ideal that we're as far from as we are from the Nazi party. A very great distance, I am thankful to say. To follow up, though - I don't counter the totalitarian conclusions of the Party presented in this book with mystic bullshit like Winston. It is BECAUSE of mechanistic building upon the framework of pragmatism that I arrive at the traditional Socialist ideals - there is an interesting coincidence between both the ideals of greed and generosity that I've yet to see anybody touch on. A reconciling of median and mean. I've been raiding the Dept of Commerce, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and certain Krugman articles extensively in support of this idea lately, and hopefully I'll have something to write about at some point in the future.
--SB |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
Just read 1984 for the first time. by Senor Barborito 02/25/2003, 12:11am PST 
Re: Just read 1984 for the first time. by Lufteufel 02/25/2003, 3:11am PST 
Ayn Rand is for FAGORTS!!!!! (nt) NT by Objectively better than You. 02/25/2003, 10:18pm PST 
Oh good, you're prepped then. by Zseni 02/25/2003, 3:12am PST 
Re: Just read 1984 for the first time. by junior allen 02/25/2003, 8:35am PST 
Re: Just read 1984 for the first time. by Motherhead 02/25/2003, 5:42pm PST 
1984 was a ripoff of We by Zamiatin by FABIO 02/27/2003, 12:24am PST 
I KNOW. EVERY GODDAMN COLLEGE KID *KNOWS* ALREADY SHUT UP. by Senor Barborito 02/27/2003, 2:38am PST 
Re: I KNOW. EVERY GODDAMN COLLEGE KID *KNOWS* ALREADY SHUT UP. by Minimal Media 02/27/2003, 12:23pm PST 
Re: I KNOW. EVERY GODDAMN COLLEGE KID *KNOWS* ALREADY SHUT UP. by Lufteufel 02/27/2003, 6:26pm PST 
Edit: Ayn-Rand-Reading-And-Spewing. Happy? NT NT by Senor Barborito 03/05/2003, 12:19am PST 
almost by Luftuefel 03/05/2003, 11:32pm PST 
I'll explain sometime by Senor Barborito 03/06/2003, 12:10am PST 
every HIGHSCHOOL kid has already read 1984 by FABIO 03/06/2003, 12:36am PST 
On the other hand, Catch 22 was completely original. And way better. by laudablepuss 02/27/2003, 7:33pm PST 
Re: On the other hand, Catch 22 was completely original. And way better. by ydrt 02/27/2003, 10:23pm PST 
Re: On the other hand, Catch 22 was completely original. And way better. by FABIO 03/06/2003, 12:26am PST 
|
|
| |
|
| |