I’ve been thinking about 1984 a lot and had this kicking around in my head so this is probably the best place to put it. The ideas may be running into each other, but if I hash it out and get crits I can improve it. I also just typed about 2000 words only to hit backspace and lose it all, so forgive me if I’m incoherent with frustration:
Words are imperfect. Words are devices used to convey abstract concepts and desires from one human to another. In order to be useful, words must have definitions specific enough that they exclude other definitions. This exclusion must be powerful enough to preclude even synonyms. For if two words are perfectly synonymous, then one or both of them is useless. Words are often not useful. For one, they rely on other words to define them, so if there is a problem with words themselves the effect is compounded circularly. Secondly, abstractions may come in different forms to different people, in shapes, colors, sounds, or undefineable mental phenomena. Thirdly and most significantly, many of the most important words used in the most important discourse are not defined to the exclusion of other definitions.
Take “Capitalism” for example. Depending on who you ask it means “our current system of production and exchange, the private ownership of production, free-market production and exchange, corporatist production and exchange, inherently oppressive system of organization, or ‘dunno’. It is no longer a useful word to use. To effectively use the word ‘Capitalism’ one must then define the word in the more precise definition to exclude the other definitions, when one may have saved time and simply uttered the ‘excluder’ phrase and foregone the inconvenience of uttering Capitalism. A n irreversible consequence of saying Capitalism is to summon to the mind of the listener, the abstraction in which that person understands Capitalism. Even explaining what you mean and thus ruling out the abstraction conjured in the listener’s mind will not erase its imprint from the listener, no matter how disciplined a debater he may be.
Multiple definitions are bestowed on words from the experiences which people associate with them. For example: A master whips his slave, repeatedly shouting “This is redemption!” Would you expect the slave to have an opinion of the word ‘redemption’ wherein he associates it with God and Heaven? I would not. I would expect him to associate it with the master and the whip. Take the Marxian definition of Capitalism. Laborers working in poor conditions thought “Hmph! So this is Capitalism…” Thus it came to be that Capitalism would mean poor working conditions and employer oppression. In this sense a human be trained like Pavlov’s dog or Alex the Droog. Show him images of hard-labor, while playing bombastic classical music, inspiring speeches, and beautiful women and he will associate hard-labor with glory.
<<< A digression: An introvert voices his thoughts as words less than the extrovert. From this, he benefits. The extrovert converts abstractions he holds in his mind and converts them into words. Words are often defined more by connotations and impressions than by their precise meanings. Thus the extrovert will gradually lose the capability of thinking precisely. Always saying what he thinks, he will think in words and become unable to conjure pure abstractions without simultaneously conjuring the connotations and impressions associated with the word best fit for that abstraction. His mind becomes closed to the limit of his feelings. Mental doors are closed. His capacity to think precisely is impaired.
The introvert suffers this detriment less. He converts the precision of his abstractions into the imprecision of words less often. He is able to think more in abstractions and less in words. He is not chained to the mental shortcuts of connotation. He is able to walk along thin line without being pulled to the side by heavy magnetism of emotionalism and mental programming.>>>
In order for communication to be useful, words must be chosen very carefully. To choose words recklessly is to abandon the hope of communication. Here is a list of words/phrases I despise. They conceal more than they reveal, or are immediately sucked to a wall of false meaning once uttered, or a combination of both.
Free Speech – When one cries “Free Speech” what he means is “I demand that my master permit me to speak freely!” To say this is to acknowledge the existence and legitimacy of a master. The free man does not cry “free speech”, he speaks freely and then, once the state’s henchmen come to arrest him, he properly indicts them as kidnappers. “Free Speech” - It is the slave saying “Master! Of all things that you may take from me, do not take my right to speak freely”. To cry “Free Speech” is to knowingly confirm and approve of one’s slavery. This goes to Freedom of Press/Religion/Whatever as well. It is pleading.
Libertarianism – This is translated as “the political position that liberty should be advanced above all else”. It rests on a basic fallacy. Liberty is not advanced or regressed. It exists or does not. What many people mistake as freedoms or liberties are merely the permitted activities of a gracious master.
Freedom – To the leftist, freedom means “ rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, chaos, unfairness, racism, sexism, religious fundamentalism etc.” Upon uttering this word, the listener’s mind is positioned as such: freedom is sucked onto the magnetized wall which is constituted of the above characteristics. In arguing with this person, you are trying to pull a heavily magnetized object off of a wall from outside of their head. It will be difficult.
Anarchism – To the common man, Anarchism means “chaos, destruction, death, black, bomb, rape, evil” The same effect described above in the ‘freedom’ paragraph is also in effect upon the utterance of this word. The time it takes to describe Anarchism as “an absence of institutionalized violence” will be to no avail. The word has been said, the image is conjured. It would have been better to say “an absence of institutionalized violence” in the first place.
People do not think that way. They don’t think things like ““It would have been better to say “an absence of institutionalized violence” in the first place.” They just accept words as whatever they are.
In order to communicate effectively, one must avoid words like these. Ayn Rand would aptly have called them Anti-concepts. It is better to take the time to use words of irreducible meaning like “aggression”, even if your opponent will not return the courtesy.
Additionally, I’ve discovered a word I’m very fond of. Anarch. Not Anarchist, but Anarch. Anarchist is one who jockeys to push a new social system, an advocate. He is a being of politics. The Anarchist is one who pushes for a day when he can be free. The Anarch is he who recognizes no legitimacy in any aggression upon him. He takes the integrity of his person as a given, a pre-requisite of existence. He is completely free, although repeatedly trampled.
Thoughts?
