![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Recently ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
zodaicmg and I were discussing one of those repetitive themes in my life: Brave New World. (The history here is that I wrote my college essay- the one I sent to the schools I got into: the other schools mostly got an essay about my relationship with my sister that my mother loved, and which I wasn't thrilled with originally, but about which I was persuaded. But I was really proud of the Brave New World essay: it was on why sadness was essential to being able to perceive and therefore experience happiness. And that's one of those things that's rather important in how I look at my life.)
In any case, we were discussing why Brave New World portrayed a distopia rather than a utopia, with him arguing that the system was perfect, and therefore should be considered a utopia. He admitted that people in that system wouldn't be people as we perceive them, and that it can't seem like a utopia to us- but that it would be for them, and that contentment was higher than happiness. We argued it for a while (with several other people,tovah623 included), and gave up. But I'm starting to see why we couldn't agree: he was looking at it as a system, not as a matter of a utopic existance for any individual. I tend to see any theoretical society as utopic/distopic based on the happiness of any individual, not as a matter of contentment because of a lack of other awareness. How can something be perfect if no one is aware of the idea of perfection or imperfection as such? I'm not sure a utopia could exist, even if they were theoretically possible, because people would cease to be aware that it was utopic if that was what they expected, and then it wouldn't be a utopia anymore because people couldn't be aware of emotions if all they perceived was pleasant- it would just up the sensitivity to unpleasantness. But in any case, I don't think the perfection or workings of a system can make a society- a society is based on a grouping of individuals.
Completely randomly- I just looked over, and there's a AA battery sticking out from the bottom of the seat of my chair. I am very, very confused.
zodaicmg and I were discussing one of those repetitive themes in my life: Brave New World. (The history here is that I wrote my college essay- the one I sent to the schools I got into: the other schools mostly got an essay about my relationship with my sister that my mother loved, and which I wasn't thrilled with originally, but about which I was persuaded. But I was really proud of the Brave New World essay: it was on why sadness was essential to being able to perceive and therefore experience happiness. And that's one of those things that's rather important in how I look at my life.) In any case, we were discussing why Brave New World portrayed a distopia rather than a utopia, with him arguing that the system was perfect, and therefore should be considered a utopia. He admitted that people in that system wouldn't be people as we perceive them, and that it can't seem like a utopia to us- but that it would be for them, and that contentment was higher than happiness. We argued it for a while (with several other people,
tovah623 included), and gave up. But I'm starting to see why we couldn't agree: he was looking at it as a system, not as a matter of a utopic existance for any individual. I tend to see any theoretical society as utopic/distopic based on the happiness of any individual, not as a matter of contentment because of a lack of other awareness. How can something be perfect if no one is aware of the idea of perfection or imperfection as such? I'm not sure a utopia could exist, even if they were theoretically possible, because people would cease to be aware that it was utopic if that was what they expected, and then it wouldn't be a utopia anymore because people couldn't be aware of emotions if all they perceived was pleasant- it would just up the sensitivity to unpleasantness. But in any case, I don't think the perfection or workings of a system can make a society- a society is based on a grouping of individuals. Completely randomly- I just looked over, and there's a AA battery sticking out from the bottom of the seat of my chair. I am very, very confused.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
1) While happiness is an emotion, it IS the result of a chemical reaction (which is why bipolars, who have a chemical imbalance, shift between extreme happiness and sadness). Put more of the right chemicals in the brain, and the person will feel very happy indeed (hence the name of drug "ecstasy" -- people under the influence of that drug sometimes cannot get angry even if they had every reason to do so). With that in mind, I like debka_notion's differentiation between different kinds of happiness. But, I think, debka_notion, that perhaps you should delineate them differently, precisely because happiness IS a chemical result. For example, your definition of true happiness might be called "satisfaction." The main point here is, there is a difference between an emotion (chemical) and an experience (systematic).
2) Ignorance as bliss also only tends to apply to information, not experience. Some people would argue that it is better when one does not know what he is missing...
3) Ignorance is bliss only in the very temporary sense. As zodiacmg points out, its more conditional than it is temporary. And one thing to keep in mind with respect to BNW is that the reader has a John Savage position. That is to say that they have a more omniscient perspective outside of the system. From inside the system, many things may not be so apparent, particularly given conditioning from birth. And, even when things are apparent, many people still run like hell from the truth, desperately afraid of what the truth might mean.
I look forward to what y'all shall come up with in this discussion -- been thinking a lot about it.
HUZZAH!
The Vortex