Some thoughts about a good movie.

I am watching The Matrix as I write this and I am struck by the similarity between it and the books we have been reading all three are distoypias where a group, human or otherwise complete dominate humanity, in 1984 through the innate bloodlust, in Brave new World through satisfaction(unlike Mick Jagger), In The Matrix it is through a hyper-advanced simulation that turns the human mind into an AI program much like the basic AI programs that are the enemies in a video game. However you have but one life as the placebo effect damages you and as Morpheus puts it "the body cannot survive without the mind" although that does pose the question of what one who has achieved zen could do. probably what Neo pulls off at the end. Just throwing that out there and well...freeing your mind.

Brave New World, Postmodernism, and You

Brave New World is not, in my opinion, a direct criticism of postmodernism. It might be however an assault on a "perfectly rational" society that brave new world is and isn't. The era of reason is no longer a valid meta-narrative as humanity has proved too corruptible and all too willing to torture, murder, loot, destroy and jaywalk. Milligram's famous obedience experiment lends credence to the modernist ideas about the weaknesses of humanity. take for example the way the "savages" are treated like disobedient children with the line "They'll never learn." This shows how the modernist world view of the weaknesses of humanity can ultimately play out if a society follows that. If we are to define postmodernism in part as a "incredulity toward Meta Narratives " As Lyotard did then Brave New World is only following Modernist thought on the weakness of a previous meta-narrative, the idea of progress taken to an illogical extreme. Additionally there is an interesting criticism of Lyotard with his decentering creating a new center. it is similar to mathematics the graph for tangent has no maximum height so it has no amplitude or it could be said that the amplitude is infinitently large. That is something a post modernist would argue is both, a concept that is a paradox*. Something that is elaborated on later during the discussion on the AT&T building(pgs:88-90). Another interesting point is on Page 31,"We do what we do because that's the way we do it." in essence stating why science cannot justify itself. Although it reminds some of another quote, "We do what we must because we can" Finally there is the idea about the failure of the meta-narrative of progress. Progress itself still continues as does romanticism, realism and all other ideologies some of which should have been forgotten. And some have. However people are free to choose what meta-narrative, or combination of meta-narratives they believe in. Both of these are gone in Brave New World, as the people are conditioned to believe in stabilty above everything else. and with the Hypno-platitud that "science is everything" even when it isn't the society is now established.

Brave Old World

Despite the fact that brave new world was written in the 1930's it is still a relevant novel in how people can become more machine like. In the case of Brave New World people are machines that produce, consume, and then after 60 years die. This reminds me of cars or computers designed to break down just in time for you to buy the next model. The society has progressed, but progress itself is neither good nor bad, it is a tool, or a force. Both of those are morally neutral, and depend entirely on who uses them. This creates a horizontal society that rules itself. The point of view is equally scattered in chapter 3, after which it seems to "lock" onto Bernard Marx. All of these are relevant critques of our own society that at times seems to be in direct conflict with itself. A society that preached free love(an inherent contradiction in terms) and abstince. Too be fair our society is fragmented more in part to personal belief and congitive dissonace than any bio-engineering. Another interesting point that is brought up is the dislike of the lower castes (Deltas, Epsilons) by the upper castes (Alphas, Betas) classism anybody? another thing Why do we never see male betas or female alphas? to be honest that last point's a bit off topic...
But my opinion of this society is highly critical as it lacks humanity, something I would define based upon potential of all human beings to achieve greatness, and some do. By breeding everyone, they have set limits. This I strongly object to and will oppose, at the very least in spirt, until the end of the universe. On a side note, this does not mean that I am against social welfare, to the contrary I think it gives our society an improved probability of survival, by preserving at the very least the possiblity of advancement. We see this heavily in the first chapter with the predestination rooms and how the physically human but mentally machines are "made." In the first chapter we see and in a sense hear all of the students "scribbling notes" it is repeated in some form or another, four times additionally the phrase"from the horse's mouth to the notebook." These are not students, they're photocopiers. ignore that last statement it sorta worked its way out my ear

En Mi opinion

Personally I believe that history had an obejective existance that we must recognize as sun-tzu wrote in his book the Art of War that "The state cannot be brought back into existance, the dead cannot be brought back into life" (At that point he was advising generals as to why hasty ill planed revenge attacks was a trait of a bad general) but it is impossible impossible to say for certain if reality is subjective or objective and that is a debate for another time. However it is important that we teach a history that is as inclusive as possible, if nothing else solely for pragmatic reasons. While it is impossible to teach everything, as not everything is known, the primary focus of society should be to show how the past affects the present, and show examples of those who succeed as role models, this includes a vide variety of people from Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, John Fitsgerald Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Thurgood Marshall, Ceasar Chavez, Etc. All of these examples are from the 20th century, a more comprehensive list would take pages to transcribe. However if any one group is removed from history it is detrimental to the students that identify themselves as members of that group. For example the study done that was instrumental in the ruling of Brown v. Board of Education showed that society and the segregated school system was detremental to African American students.
Sorry for the obvious retcon, but I wasn't quite finished, but I appreciate the praise none the less. Back to the topic, As stated above there is a pragmatic reason for creating an inclusive history that shows its impact on the present, just as in 1984 the "captialists" were shown in their lowest point the early 1800's in Britain in the U.S. it was the guilded age which took place later, in order to justify the extreme measures that the proles and party members live in. Think of how certain pundits argue over the traits of the founding fathers, ulitmately who cares how often, say Thomas Jefferson went to church? only someone who would like to use that as to justify the continuation of the "Defense of Marrage" Act. And for the proverbial record I doubt someone who would after his wife's death move onto her younger half sister who happened to be a family slave was a bible thumping fundamentalist.