Karin’s Comments (group member since Jan 15, 2015)

Karin’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

Me, too, Traveller. I'm still catching up on the reading. I think there is so much more to comment/expand on! I'm almost to Part 2 :)

I'm back, and the fish have been saved :)

I was trying to say that 1984 still seems hugely relevant today, but in more subtle ways, at least in Western societies. For example, Edward Snowden revealed just how much information the NSA collects through monitoring phone calls. And in a way, Facebook and Google remind me the telescreens in 1984: they track our lives and are most likely monitored.

Additionally, in Orwell's book, there is an endless war, which sounds similar to today's seemingly endless "war on terror."

I'm also fascinated by Traveller's mention of controlling/eliminating memories. I see that happening today: we can wipe out entire hard drives or present want we want to present on social media, leaving out huge sections of our lives.

While 1984 might not be obviously relevant in the USA or Europe in 2015, I see definite parallels :)

Poingu wrote: "The part I'm not buying is that any "all-powerful State" can control its citizens to the point where Orwell's vision in 1984 makes any sense. His premise from the first page is that an individual's..."

Poingu, I see your point. I wonder if it would be correct to say that government/corporate surveillance & manipulation is still dangerously pervasive, but in much more subtle rather than overt ways. I mean, we offer huge amounts of private information through social networks, such as Facebook and Google searches. The government, corporations, and whoever wants to can track our lives--and we gladly hand over our info.

My kids are busy putting something in the fish tank (bubble solution?), so I hope this makes sense. I'm still reading 1984 and want to comment on other ideas later :)

Derek, great insights!

I see the government’s (mis)use of slogans as a type of linguistic relativity, where meaning shifts and slips according to how the government wants to control the people’s thoughts. Orwell seems to disapprove of this “slippage” and "fuzziness" of language.

Instead, Orwell seems to believe that language should act as a transparent window into an objective reality. I think Orwell sees semantic gaps as a threat (whereas someone like Derrida would see them as opportunities). So while Orwell condemns the way governments abuse language to control people, I wonder how far Orwell takes the other side of the argument; i.e., if Orwell has a more Saussurean structuralist bent, which maintains that the signifier should refer directly to the signified. But I'm just thinking aloud :)

Traveller, yes! Brilliant visualization. Enthymemes (and by extension, slogans) might be described as "fuzzy logic" because they depend on cultural topoi for validity rather than on the unequivocal "first principles" of syllogisms. Obviously, the problem is that governments/advertisers/corporations manipulate those cultural topoi, even to the point where an audience believes it can agree with two contradictory premises (as seen in 1984).

As I think through this, I wonder if Orwell believed in "first principles," i.e., an objective reality, and if, by extension, he believed meanings of words were static and referred to an objective reality.

Garima wrote: "I think the concept of slogans itself is being played by Orwell. As to how 3-4 words holds the power of influence the thinking of people irrespective of age and era. I think WAR IS PEACE is an inco..."

It really is fascinating how language gets twisted and used like this. These slogans and others ("Choose Life," Work Will Set You Free," etc) seem to be a really compact form of a syllogism. Aristotle's enythmeme comes to mind here. As we know, an enthymeme is an incomplete syllogism where one step in the logical process is omitted or suppressed. The power in doing this is that the reader/audience is allowed to bring in their own (often unstated and subconscious) assumptions. The audience, in a sense, is allowed to complete the syllogism themselves, which makes them more likely to believe it. However, once the omitted part of the syllogism is teased out, the audience may find they don't agree with it after all.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm always in a rush to type--my kids are doing something with hot sauce downstairs. ...

This is really wonderful information! This really helps deepen my understanding of the context and the conversations from which 1984 emerged. Extremely helpful.

I would love to do both 1984 and Midnight's Children. I read 1984 ages ago and need to resurrect it from the ashes of my high school English class.

Allen, I almost always type from my iPhone, and it has the same problems you describe. I can't reply to someone, and (as Traveller knows from another thread :)), I can't delete double posts from my iPhone. I've learned I have to wait a minute to see my post rather than hitting "post" several times if it doesn't show up right away :)

Just to quickly add my voice, Ray Bradbury's semi-horror little Gothic novel "Something Wicked This Way Comes" tickled my fancy :)

Traveller wrote: "Hello, hello, hello, so nice to see you guys! I was hoping we'd meet with your approval mark, and I'm very happy to see my new friend Karin here.

/me passes around the drinks. Karin, i love ho..."

Hehe. I think I FINALLY found one I like. The field of sunflowers was a bit too . . . cheerful :)

Hello, everyone! This group looks awesome, and I'm looking forward to being a part of it!