{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3386", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3386, "subject": "Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "messages": 10, "voices": 6, "first": "2002-07-29T18:39:16+00:00", "last": "2002-08-01T10:02:01+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com" }, "date": "2002-07-30T03:36:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Blattid wrote:\nSecond, I do not mean (nor did I mean to imply) that Ascian\nCorrect Thought is _exclusively_ a parable of the Maoist\nCult of Personality." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But you =do= mean to exclude all things Orwell from the mix, right? I mean,\nthat is what I heard before, that is what I hear now. That is what I\ncontinue to find so puzzling." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The approach to thought control taken by the Ingsoc Party\n(more specifically, one supposes, Ministrue) in NINETEEN\nEIGHTY-FOUR is fundamentally different (in my opinion) from\nthat taken by the Group of Seventeen in tBotNS; the former\nseeks to redesign grammar and vocabulary so that thoughtcrime\nis literally unthinkable, but to leave enough flexibility that\nmore or less anything can be thought." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmmm. I don't know." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The approach of Ascian \"Correct Thought\" is somewhat different.\nIt does not seek to change the _form_ of the language, but to\nlimit -- by what mechanism we are not told -- the actual things\nthe people are allowed to say (and so, presumably, to think).\nLike Newspeak, the basic idea of imprisoning minds this way\nis (Skinnerian or Whorf-Sapirean) nonsense, and Loyal to the\nGroup of Seventeen's story of the just man shows how Correct\nThought can be manipulated to think the \"incorrect\" (or\n\"unthinkable\") -- on this much, at least, we are agreed?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmmm. Well maybe. I mean, part of the problem in this approach (comparing\nApproved Texts, most of which comes from \"The Just Man,\" with Newspeak of\nNINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR) is that we do not have an Ascian boundary and its\npenetration as we have in Oceania (\"down with Big Brother!\"). Winston\nSmith is a rebel; Loyal to the Group of Seventeen is a prisoner of war who\ndoes not show any clear signs of switching sides -- we take his speech to\nbe orthodox. What would be the unthinkable elements in \"The Just Man\"?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My point is that the Ingsoc approach is more subtle and, in a\nword, structural, allowing an essentially infinite array of\nthinkables while fencing off certain areas as unthinkable --\na bounded infinity of utterances, if you will. The Ascian\napproach is radically different; it uses brute iterative force\nto say \"Here are the thinkable thoughts; there are no others.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure I follow. One difference I can see, as I try to understand\nwhat you are saying (yet this is actually not what you are saying), is a\ndifference of unit scale: Newspeak is built on the word level, whereas the\nunits of Approved Texts are . . . well, what, exactly? Paragraphs,\nsentences, and perhaps sentence fragments (like \"loyal to the Group of\nSeventeen\"; \"no one is to receive more than 100 blows\").\n\nThese units are used differently, it seems. Paragraphs would seem to have\nthe most rigidity to them and so presumably offer less room for nuance (as\nthey drag more of their original context along with them). Sentences,\notoh, are removed from textual context and thus presumably could be used to\nsay the opposite of the original meaning.\n\nThus, if Foila isn't actually lying (i.e., giving a false interpretation of\nthe source text), a fellow can use Approved Texts with a cut and paste\napproach and tell an original story . . . hmmm, or =is= it original? Maybe\nthe entire text of \"The Just Man\" is unabridged, verbatim Authorized Text\n-- is that what everyone assumes? If so, that completely demolishes my\n\"human spirit works around the obstacle\" line of reasoning . . . the tale\nbecomes a propaganda told by a cunning robot.\n\n(My thinking before was something more like, oh, tell the story of \"Romeo\nand Juliet\" using only complete sentences from \"MacBeth.\")" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I take this to be an extrapolation-to-the-final-stage of the\nMaoist _type_ of \"political correctness.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "OTOH, to the best of my knowledge, even at the height of the\npersonality cult the Chinese did not make a practice of\nspeaking exclusively in quotes from the little red book.\nSo the historical context of the little red book\ndoes not contain the aspect of Approved Texts/Correct Thought." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I cannot speak of the Chinese, except from the somewhat random\nreports I recall of people being sent to camps for \"re-education\nin Chairman Mao thought\" during the Cultural Revolution. (The\nthought of the Cultural Revolution inspired the Subject: line of\nthis posting, of course.) I can give anecdotal evidence of folks\nI knew in Berkeley in the mid-'70s, who had a Chairman Mao quote\nfor every occasion and who judged all opinions (even, it seemed\nat times, all utterances) against Chairman Mao Thought. These\npeople took Mao's quotations as the set of axioms from which all\npolitcally \"correct thought\" must flow.\n\nIt seems to me to be a relatively small step, a relatively small\n_satirical_ and extrapolative step, from there to simply closing\noff the minds of the followers to all other thoughts completely.\nAnd so I believe that to say that \"the historical context of the\nlittle red book does not contain the aspect of Approved Texts/\nCorrect Thought\" is orthogonal to the point I am making." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Then it was doubleplusgood of you to give a plusbig answer to it.\n\nI hope the basic point of my note is undarkthink. We was gived unOrwell\nstatements, vaguing a position as darkthink to me (and maybe others) as the\nelephant is to the three spying sightless mans: one touch the leg and say,\n\"Elephant is treeful\"; one touch the trunk and say, \"Elephant is snakeful\";\nman three touch the belly and say, \"Elephant is houseful.\" When in fact\nTotal Elephant is untreeful, unsnakeful, and unhouseful.\n\nFor myself as unseeing man in this Elephant case, I gived the Orwell\nposition. Spying into the dark, the question \"Is a unsurplus of Orwell\nbasic the cause of this darkthink?\" No, undarkwise not: 1 = 1. Orwell\nquota is established. Plusgood.\n\nNext question, \"Is littleredbookthing used in unhistoryful way?\" Yes,\nundarkwise: 2 = 2. Littleredbookthing position is semibuilded. Plusgood.\n\nIt was a surprise, then, that even though 1 = 1, and 2 = 2, still the\ndarkthink remain dark, likewise darker than anteanswer.\n\nUndarkwise this line of inquiry is unuseful. Down the memory hole.\n\n=mantis=" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-07-30T16:41:53+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Mantis, quoting I, wrote:\nSecond, I do not mean (nor did I mean to imply) that Ascian\nCorrect Thought is _exclusively_ a parable of the Maoist\nCult of Personality." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But you =do= mean to exclude all things Orwell from the mix, \nright? I mean, that is what I heard before, that is what I\nhear now. That is what I continue to find so puzzling." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...perhaps. Certainly I think that any Orwellian strain is weaker \nand more distant than the Maoist. I think SF fans (myself \nincluded!) have a tendency to hear resonances of SF texts in \nother texts, and those not only SF texts, perhaps more strongly \nthan their authors intended -- an attention-focus phenomenon that \nneeds correction at times. Thus, while I don't suppose I can go so \nfar as to deny that an Orwellian echo cho ho o may exist in the \nAscian speech pattern, I think it secondary at most.\n\nConsider: If Wolfe's model for \"war\" was/is his experience in the\nKorean \"conflict,\" then who were/are his model for \"enemy\"? The \nNorth Koreans, inspired/supported by -- of all entities! -- Mao's \nChina. (And, to be sure, the USSR.) Asian-style Communism, as \nperceived by an American conservative (hivelike, anti-individual, \ncentralized, etc.), is a clear match for Ascia.\n\nAnd, perhaps most importantly, the _style_ of the Ascian sayings\ngreatly resembles that of Mao. Here are a few examples:\n\n\"Where do correct ideas come from? Do they drop from the skies? \nNo. Are they innate in the mind? No. They come from social \npractice, and from it alone; they come from three kinds of social \npractice, the struggle for production, the class struggle and \nscientific experiment.\"\n\n\"It [materialist dialectics] holds that external causes are the \ncondition of change and internal causes are the basis of change,\nand that external causes become operative through internal \ncauses. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, \nbut no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because \neach has a different basis.\"\n\n\"Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of \nthe first importance for the revolution. The basic reason why all \nprevious revolutionary struggles in China achieved so little was \ntheir failure to unite with real friends in order to attack real \nenemies. A revolutionary party is the guide of the masses...\"\n\n\"It is not enough to set tasks, we must also solve the problem \nof the methods for carrying them out. If our task is to cross a \nriver, we cannot cross it without a bridge or a boat.\"\n\n\"On what basis should our policy rest? It should rest on our \nown strength, and that means regeneration through one's own \nefforts.\"\n\n\"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid \nof the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.\"\n\n...well, those are only a few samples; if you want to see some\nmore, check out http://art-bin.com/art/omaotoc.html." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "... Loyal to the\nGroup of Seventeen's story of the just man shows how Correct\nThought can be manipulated to think the \"incorrect\" (or\n\"unthinkable\") -- on this much, at least, we are agreed?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hmmm. Well maybe. ... What would be the unthinkable elements\nin \"The Just Man\"?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Severian himself observes that it seems to criticize the \nGroup of Seventeen for not dealing with the just man's \nproblem promptly -- indeed, they never _do_; it's just the \nbad guys' fears that they might that provides a happy ending." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My point is that the Ingsoc approach is more subtle and, in a\nword, structural, allowing an essentially infinite array of\nthinkables while fencing off certain areas as unthinkable --\na bounded infinity of utterances, if you will. The Ascian\napproach is radically different; it uses brute iterative force\nto say \"Here are the thinkable thoughts; there are no others.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure I follow. One difference I can see, as I try to \nunderstand what you are saying (yet this is actually not what\nyou are saying), is a difference of unit scale: Newspeak is\nbuilt on the word level, whereas the units of Approved Texts\nare . . . well, what, exactly? Paragraphs, sentences, and\nperhaps sentence fragments (like \"loyal to the Group of\nSeventeen\"; \"no one is to receive more than 100 blows\")." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's more than unit scale; it's a qualitative difference. \nWords give you building blocks to make thoughts out of; the \npre-formed Approved Texts are intended to be an exhaustive \nlist of the thoughts that one may think. Where a citizen of \nOceania might in theory say \"B-B doubleplusungood,\" an \nAscian cannot -- again, in theory -- say \"It's okay for some\npeople receive more than a hundred blows.\" Somewhere in \nthere it's said that most Ascians are conditioned to the \npoint where if you say anything that is not an Approved Text, \nthey simply fail to understand you.\n\nWhich, once again, I think is nonsense, and totally contrary \nto the way in which humans actually acquire language ... Wolfe, \nI seem to recall, pays lip service to this by suggesting that \nnon-Approved Text utterances are regarded by adult Ascians as \n\"the babblings of children.\" But I would suggest that any \nsystem of mind-control that would make someone incapable of\ncomprehending any non-Approved utterance doesn't actually need\nApproved Texts to enforce itself...\n\n...but that, too, is orthogonal to my point; in the Lupine\nuniverse of discourse, that's the method the Group of Seventeen\n(and, ultimately, the Space/Sea Monsters) use to control the\nminds of the \"populace,\" and what we're actually arguing about \nisn't whether it would work in RL, but what its literary and \nhistorical antecedents and inspirations might be. 8*)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "These units are used differently, it seems. Paragraphs would \nseem to have the most rigidity to them and so presumably offer\nless room for nuance (as they drag more of their original \ncontext along with them). Sentences, otoh, are removed from\ntextual context and thus presumably could be used to say the\nopposite of the original meaning." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Invoking a variant of Godwin's Law: When you say that, you\nremind me of Douglas Hofstadter. 8*)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(My thinking before was something more like, oh, tell the \nstory of \"Romeo and Juliet\" using only complete sentences\nfrom \"MacBeth.\")" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "H'mmm. An interesting challenge. Are name changes allowed?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I hope the basic point of my note is undarkthink. We was \ngived unOrwell statements, vaguing a position as darkthink\nto me (and maybe others) as the elephant is to the three\nspying sightless mans:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(Deleted your Newspeakery of the Blind Men and the Elephant.\nA marvellous conceit!)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For myself as unseeing man in this Elephant case, I gived the \nOrwell position. Spying into the dark, the question \"Is a \nunsurplus of Orwell basic the cause of this darkthink?\" No,\nundarkwise not: 1 = 1. Orwell quota is established. Plusgood." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And that is precisely what I am questioning: _where_ is the Orwell\nquota established? The style of Correct Thought is not the style\nof Newspeak; it is (as I hope my samples above have shown) very\nmuch in the style of Chairman Mao Thought, which I hope leaves\nthe littleredbookthing position plusfirmlybuilded." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-07-29T18:39:16+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \n\nAnd that is precisely what I am questioning: _where_ is the Orwell\nquota established? The style of Correct Thought is not the style\nof Newspeak; it is (as I hope my samples above have shown) very\nmuch in the style of Chairman Mao Thought, which I hope leaves\nthe littleredbookthing position plusfirmlybuilded." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But it is obvious.\n\nThe fact that the Ascians can speak *only* in the phrases known as Correct\nThought matches the fact that Orwell's inhabitants of Oceana will one day\nspeak **only** in Newspeak.\n\nBut there is no real-life correspondence to this: the Koreans may have\nchanted Maoist slogans, but they were not **forbidden** to use other words\nor phrases.\n\nOnly in Orwell's 1984 (and arguably in some SF books written since then)\ndoes this concept of total linguistic replacement arise.\n\nI agree, however, that the style of the quotes is very close to Maoism\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net" }, "date": "2002-07-30T23:20:45+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Andy Robertson wrote:\nOnly in Orwell's 1984 (and arguably in some SF books written since then)\ndoes this concept of total linguistic replacement arise." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Really?\n\nWhen was the last time you used the word 'nigger' in conversation?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-07-29T22:50:37+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Josh Geller\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Only in Orwell's 1984 (and arguably in some SF books written since then)\ndoes this concept of total linguistic replacement arise." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Really?\n\nWhen was the last time you used the word 'nigger' in conversation?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, not relevant, though pithy. Some words can be cut out, but it's not\nthe same thing as the massive restructuring Orwell was diagramming" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net" }, "date": "2002-07-30T23:41:54+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Andy Robertson wrote:\nFrom: \"Josh Geller\" " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Only in Orwell's 1984 (and arguably in some SF books written since then)\ndoes this concept of total linguistic replacement arise." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Really?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "When was the last time you used the word 'nigger' in conversation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, not relevant, though pithy. Some words can be cut out, but it's not\nthe same thing as the massive restructuring Orwell was diagramming" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmm. I don't know if I agree.\n\nBut hey, go ahead and believe what you like. What do I care?\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jason Ingram", "address": "j_ingram at mac.com" }, "date": "2002-07-31T01:03:18+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't mean to butt in, but I think a third perspective might be \nhelpful . . .\n\nThe _concept_ of total linguistic replacement predates Orwell; the \npositivists were interested in replacing ambiguous terms and locutions \nwith precise, scientific alternatives. Their project had a basis in \nJeremy Bentham's argument for the replacement of emotional, biasing \nterms with (purportedly) neutral, objective alternatives. These \nprojects were not embodied in novels--and were accordingly imagined \ndifferently than in Orwell--but they do seem to be \"total.\"\n\nAt the same time, other cultures have attempted far less extreme forms \nof linguistic control; France maintains an institution that authorizes \nnew words for new inventions and generally attempts to preserve an \n'official' French. This certainly differs in degree from Newspeak, and \nalmost certainly differs in kind, but perhaps also describes a continuum.\n\nSepia\n\nJosh and Andy argue:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Only in Orwell's 1984 (and arguably in some SF books written since \nthen)\ndoes this concept of total linguistic replacement arise." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Really?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "When was the last time you used the word 'nigger' in conversation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Again, not relevant, though pithy. Some words can be cut out, but \nit's not\nthe same thing as the massive restructuring Orwell was diagramming" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-07-31T22:29:52+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Andy Robertson quoting Josh Geller quoting..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Only in Orwell's 1984 (and arguably in some SF books \nwritten since then) does this concept of total\nlinguistic replacement arise." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Really?\n\nWhen was the last time you used the word 'nigger' in conversation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, not relevant, though pithy. Some words can be cut \nout, but it's not the same thing as the massive restructuring\nOrwell was diagramming" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No; but the much larger removal of _all_ such epithets \nfrom polite conversation comes a lot closer.\n\nAs for granting Orwell primacy in this matter, well, that's\npretty silly. There is a longish history of people claiming \none way or another that the structure of language determines \nthe structure of thought, or actively trying to restructure \nthought through some such \"massive restructuring\" of language; \none well-known (at least in SF circles) example, published a \ngood fifteen years before NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR, is Alfred \nKorzybski's SCIENCE AND SANITY, which promises improved health \n(both phyisical and mental; indeed, it denies the distinction \nin favor of the \"more general\" concept of psychosomatic health) \nto persons who restructure their language (though, again \n\"language\" is an insufficient term) \"scientifically,\" in lines \nwith \"non-Aristotelean principles and tool\" such as \n\"non-identfication\" and \"indexing.\" Many students of Korzybski's \n\"General Semantics\" speak and write (or try to) in what they \ncall E', E-Prime, which is English without the verb \"to be,\" \nwhich (they claim, or at least some of them do) _automatically_ \neliminates identification ... and if that isn't restructuring\nthe language, I'd like to know what is!\n\nMore generally, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the basic statement\nof linguistic determinism, was first announced in 1929, though\nit has predecessors going back hundreds of years, of which \nperhaps the best known would be Wilhelm von Humboldt's \n_weltanschauung_ hypothesis: but I believe the roots of the idea\ngo back to Plato, if not further." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-07-30T22:13:58+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nAs for granting Orwell primacy in this matter, well, that's\npretty silly." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh, pish-tosh.\n\nI'm not \"granting Orwell primacy.\" I'm granting SF primacy.\n\nAnd you perfectly well know that this null-A Korzybski stuff is only\nrelevant here because of its SF content, the demented but wonderful Van Vogt\nstuff.\n\nSF rules, and defines reality, OK?\n\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-08-01T10:02:01+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Next time I'll just say \"explain yourself\"", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 31/07/2002 23:29:52 Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nAndy Robertson quoting Josh Geller quoting..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Only in Orwell's 1984 (and arguably in some SF books\nwritten since then) does this concept of total\nlinguistic replacement arise." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Really?\n\nWhen was the last time you used the word 'nigger' in conversation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Again, not relevant, though pithy. Some words can be cut\nout, but it's not the same thing as the massive restructuring\nOrwell was diagramming" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No; but the much larger removal of _all_ such epithets\nfrom polite conversation comes a lot closer.\n\nAs for granting Orwell primacy in this matter, well, that's\npretty silly. There is a longish history of people claiming\none way or another that the structure of language determines\nthe structure of thought, or actively trying to restructure\nthought through some such \"massive restructuring\" of language;\none well-known (at least in SF circles)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Is it really significant in the context of TBotNS?\n\nSeverian is convinced from his listening to Loyal's story that the ploy\ndoesn't work:\n\nFolia's explanation TCotA Ch 5\n\n \"...words that are not approved texts are without meaning for them, If\nthey admitted - even to themselves - that such talk meant something, then\nit would be possible for them to hear disloyal remarks and even to make\nthem. That would be exptremely dangerous. As long as they only understand\nand quote approved texts, no one can accuse them.\"\n\nThis is a protective mechansim not a succesful manuipulation on the\nlanguage/thought level.\n\nSeverian comments later, Ch 11\n\n \"Second I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for\nexpression. The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only with their\nmasters' voice; but they had made of it a new tounge, and I had no doubt,\nafter hearing the Ascian, that by it he could express whatever thought he\nwished.\"\n\nMatthew" } ] } ] }