3 ms·

I thought power was the point and cruelty what the way of exerting power - at least that's roughly my memory of O'Brien's explanation. That's why I think it ali

by andy99 3y ago

I thought power was the point and cruelty what the way of exerting power - at least that's roughly my memory of O'Brien's explanation. That's why I think it aligns so well with any bureaucracy, because they're all self-organizing towards gaining and exerpting more power for it's own sake. (The big difference of course being the conscious awareness of this the party has, whereas in real life it's mostly just emergent behavior)

082349872349872 3y ago
I'll have to go back and look up O'Brien; you're probably right that he phrases it as power. However, I say "cruelty" because I was thinking of the Bartle taxonomy[0] for video game players, and the Killer ♣ quadrant. Both Killers and Achievers ♦ aim for power, but only Killers are cruel: Achievers aim for power over scores or things; Killers aim for power over other players. We call that "prey drive" when it occurs in other species; compare the roles the species play in Animal Farm. Horses are not carnivores and don't have the same prey drive as dogs, but they do have a dominance spectrum. If you put out 8 piles of hay for 10 horses, the 2 weakest won't get to eat. If you put out 10 piles of hay, there will be peace (this is the key insight to feudalism as a socioeconomic structure) if the dominant animal chooses a pile first, and so on in order to the co-dominant, but plenty of violence if it's done the other way around. Now, depending upon the herd, there still may be some violence, because even if there's enough hay for everyone, a dominant horse will, like the Inner Party, chase a weak horse away from their pile just to show they can. If you don't care about herd hierarchy, and just put out 11-12 piles of hay, there will be complete peace, because each time the weak horse gets chased away, there's always an undefended pile it can eat from: the strong get to play strong but the weak still get to eat (this is the key insight to social democracy). So, yeah, if only it were possible for us all to have lots of power over our environment[1] without seeking power over each other[2], that'd be great. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_type... [1] I'd prefer moving a dozen tons of hay around with a frontloader all by myself, instead of bossing around lots of other people to do it a few kg at a time. As far as I can tell —or have merely been convinced?– the majority of humanity would prefer the latter. [2] "Oh, it's blessed are the MEEK! Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time." –Mrs. B N
082349872349872 3y ago
Looks like O'Brien (was he a St Cyprian's boy?) explicitly claims you can't tell you have power unless you're being cruel: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7486279-o-brien-how-does-one-man-assert-his-power-over-another https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7486279-o-brien-how-does-on...

by andy99 3y ago

082349872349872 3y ago

I'll have to go back and look up O'Brien; you're probably right that he phrases it as power. However, I say "cruelty" because I was thinking of the Bartle taxonomy[0] for video game players, and the Killer ♣ quadrant. Both Killers and Achievers ♦ aim for power, but only Killers are cruel: Achievers aim for power over scores or things; Killers aim for power over other players. We call that "prey drive" when it occurs in other species; compare the roles the species play in Animal Farm. Horses are not carnivores and don't have the same prey drive as dogs, but they do have a dominance spectrum. If you put out 8 piles of hay for 10 horses, the 2 weakest won't get to eat. If you put out 10 piles of hay, there will be peace (this is the key insight to feudalism as a socioeconomic structure) if the dominant animal chooses a pile first, and so on in order to the co-dominant, but plenty of violence if it's done the other way around. Now, depending upon the herd, there still may be some violence, because even if there's enough hay for everyone, a dominant horse will, like the Inner Party, chase a weak horse away from their pile just to show they can. If you don't care about herd hierarchy, and just put out 11-12 piles of hay, there will be complete peace, because each time the weak horse gets chased away, there's always an undefended pile it can eat from: the strong get to play strong but the weak still get to eat (this is the key insight to social democracy). So, yeah, if only it were possible for us all to have lots of power over our environment[1] without seeking power over each other[2], that'd be great. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_type... [1] I'd prefer moving a dozen tons of hay around with a frontloader all by myself, instead of bossing around lots of other people to do it a few kg at a time. As far as I can tell —or have merely been convinced?– the majority of humanity would prefer the latter. [2] "Oh, it's blessed are the MEEK! Oh, I'm glad they're getting something, they have a hell of a time." –Mrs. B N

082349872349872 3y ago

Looks like O'Brien (was he a St Cyprian's boy?) explicitly claims you can't tell you have power unless you're being cruel: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7486279-o-brien-how-does-one-man-assert-his-power-over-another https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7486279-o-brien-how-does-on...