It is humbling to observe and appreciate that these two authors (who are by no means alone in their message) could be so acutely capable of conveying
the unvarying self-destructive nature of the relationship between society and social order.
I can't even dream of rising to their level of art. And art is what they used to make reality available to those who insisted on making the effort to
see, experience, and comprehend what was going on in the world around them.
I believe art is the final component of humanity's potential salvation. It is among the few remaining forms of language that can be forged into
something transcending the political and ideological, in deference to the truth.
But off-topic as that assertion may seem, it is also to say that among the crucial elements of that language is the perceived audience of each author,
for they did not engineer their message in a vacuum. Each had their own share of human experience from which to draw. And each had a unique
vocabulary at their disposal.
I think both described, in essence, the proverbial 'two side of a single coin.'
We are, in all depressing earnestness, fast approaching the dawn of a new age. Expedience, the principle tool of political action, will attempt to
guide us according to it's proponents' bias. Justice, the hallmark of the ideological, will be the pressure that will cause us to fret and strain
against natural order. Neither alone can accomplish what only humans can achieve. Balance.
I would recommend that any who wish to make their lives meaningful in light of the inevitable choices that must be made must harken to the message
behind the works of both these authors.
Principles, without the context of history, is a double-edged sword. As Orwellian imagery demonstrates, even the most refined 'just' and 'righteous'
of intentions can lead to a prison-like world of oppressive servitude. Huxley, has shown that for society there is a line between what is right and
what is good, and one does not necessarily guarantee the other.
I have no formula for resolving the differences between the two. I find no contradiction in their message.
Perhaps we do need an underground to serve and protect that which is truly human. But pride and vainglory seem far too important to the immature and
half-awake. I would venture to say that both authors have shown us that being 'half-awake' is potentially more damning than being completely
During the dark ages, mystics attempted to protect humanity by enshrouding the truth in symbols and rituals. But as if in affirmation of Orwell and
Huxley's collective works, it only gave rise to 'orders' and 'fellowships' which became prey to the same failings as society at large. Fear. Fear
which led to isolationism, hermetic philosophies, and in the end, the willingness to suffer lies and aloofness, for the sake of maintaining the purity
of the 'order.'
But evidently, I ramble...
edit on 23-9-2010 by Maxmars because:
edit on 23-9-2010 by Maxmars because: More errors found