When the pop idols of your youth are dead have you crossed over into old age? Granted, both Michael and Farrah were killed by disease and not old age, but I still felt a twinge of ancient history as I explained to my much younger associates yesterday about the years of Farrah being the hottest pin-up of the 70s and Michael once being black, good looking, and talented (not that his talent ever really wained, but he was more infamous than famous of late).
I do wish their families condolences. There are children and loved ones left behind and that is always sad, regardless of what you felt about the individual. I'm sure that there will stories and too much rehashing of these two idols' lives over the next few weeks and months. That seems to be what grieving people do -- either venerate or destroy the memories of the dead.
For me, I'm just feeling old and tired. Maybe I should put on my Thriller album (yes, I said "album", not CD), have my wife put on a blond wig, and dance like it is 1983.
Or maybe not.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Happy 1984 Day
Today is the 60th anniversary of the publication of George Orwell's "1984". It is also the 200th anniversary of the death of Thomas Paine, the 18th century philosopher whose writings greatly influenced George Orwell and his dark vision of the possible future.
NPR's "Talk of the Nation" did a piece about both events today, which I enjoyed. But it reminded me of when I read "1984" and Orwell's other masterpiece "Animal Farm". I made sure that I read "1984" before the year passed -- a strange goal, but one I set and met. I read "Animal Farm" much earlier -- it is an easier book to read and understand, but lacks nothing in its commentary on social systems and governments. I saw an animated version of it as a young teenager before I had ready the book (it was while my family was vacationing in Hawaii and I saw it with my siblings on the hotel TV). The ending was changed so that the animals rise up against the pigs after seeing them through the farm house window "change" into humans. Whether this was an attempt to make the movie more palatable or was intended as a further commentary on the future of communism, I do not know, but that is not how Orwell ends his book (the book stops with the animals looking through the window and seeing the pigs change -- no reaction, just revelation left to the reader -- powerful, but haunting, ending).
The comments on today's NPR program focused on how we did not become the world of "1984", with the exception of North Korea (some interesting points were made about that). That in fact, our world was drifting more to the vision of Orwell's friend and teacher, Aldous Huxley, and his novel "Brave New World". Oddly enough, I read this one either just before or just after "1984".
I do not agree that the world is headed towards either eventuality. It has become more evil, or at least we are more aware of the evil. But the destiny of this earth is not so bleak as an overarching or all powerful government predestining our lives and attitudes. Free agency continues to exist and we still have the ability to use our will to choose. The actions of others, individuals, governments and corporations, cannot take that will away from us. We can give it up but it cannot be taken.
Yesterday in our High Priest's Group meeting, we discussed obedience and agency. One point that was very interesting was the idea that agency can be expanded by our actions and obedience. For example, if the Bishop asks me to play the organ in Sacrament Meeting, I do not have the agency to say yes -- I can't play the organ and thus my only response can be no. But if the Bishop asks my mother, because of the choices she has made and her obedience to certain rules and laws (i.e. learning to play the organ and practicing it), she has more agency -- she can either say yes or no, depending on whether she wishes to do so or not.
The bleak visions of these satirists could only come to pass if all individuals voluntarily give up their ability to choose.
So choose wisely and make a better future.
NPR's "Talk of the Nation" did a piece about both events today, which I enjoyed. But it reminded me of when I read "1984" and Orwell's other masterpiece "Animal Farm". I made sure that I read "1984" before the year passed -- a strange goal, but one I set and met. I read "Animal Farm" much earlier -- it is an easier book to read and understand, but lacks nothing in its commentary on social systems and governments. I saw an animated version of it as a young teenager before I had ready the book (it was while my family was vacationing in Hawaii and I saw it with my siblings on the hotel TV). The ending was changed so that the animals rise up against the pigs after seeing them through the farm house window "change" into humans. Whether this was an attempt to make the movie more palatable or was intended as a further commentary on the future of communism, I do not know, but that is not how Orwell ends his book (the book stops with the animals looking through the window and seeing the pigs change -- no reaction, just revelation left to the reader -- powerful, but haunting, ending).
The comments on today's NPR program focused on how we did not become the world of "1984", with the exception of North Korea (some interesting points were made about that). That in fact, our world was drifting more to the vision of Orwell's friend and teacher, Aldous Huxley, and his novel "Brave New World". Oddly enough, I read this one either just before or just after "1984".
I do not agree that the world is headed towards either eventuality. It has become more evil, or at least we are more aware of the evil. But the destiny of this earth is not so bleak as an overarching or all powerful government predestining our lives and attitudes. Free agency continues to exist and we still have the ability to use our will to choose. The actions of others, individuals, governments and corporations, cannot take that will away from us. We can give it up but it cannot be taken.
Yesterday in our High Priest's Group meeting, we discussed obedience and agency. One point that was very interesting was the idea that agency can be expanded by our actions and obedience. For example, if the Bishop asks me to play the organ in Sacrament Meeting, I do not have the agency to say yes -- I can't play the organ and thus my only response can be no. But if the Bishop asks my mother, because of the choices she has made and her obedience to certain rules and laws (i.e. learning to play the organ and practicing it), she has more agency -- she can either say yes or no, depending on whether she wishes to do so or not.
The bleak visions of these satirists could only come to pass if all individuals voluntarily give up their ability to choose.
So choose wisely and make a better future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)