high art

the resident controller for western europe, mustapha mond, said ‘…but that’s the price we have to pay for stability. you’ve got to choose between happiness and high art. we’ve sacraficed the high art.’ and is that true? isn’t there a line somewhere else, somewhere between blind faith happiness and art? and doesn’t art bring a sort of happiness? to those that create and/or enjoy it? shouldn’t there be a gray zone that we should shoot for? yes, with the world that was inherited in ‘brave new world’, the post anthrax-bomb world, it was easiest to build the extreme. toss out the art and have the happiness. no free will. no passion. but stability. essentially you have artificially brought the upper and lower control limit of happiness much closer together. no highs of a fabulous new book, or movie or shoe or boyfriend or concert. but no lows of poverty, illness, rejection, depression. is it worth it? i guess if you are sure that you can keep the system working perfectly, so there is no dissention. then, um, yeah, cause you or anyone doesn’t really know the difference. but as long as there is any sense of, well, love, for anything really, you will never be able to align everyone at the same level of passion. ok, an ‘oh duh’ but i guess the point i am really trying to make is that the goal of society should be to seek the line in the gray. i mean i suppose we should all seek that line, but that would be a personal line and gov’t has to find the average line, without breaking anyone else’s passion. ok, as i think of this, i realize that it is stupid to even express this because it is near impossible to achieve. there is NO line that doesn’t violate at least one other person’s line. so i’ll just shut up and take my soma. (maybe i’ll try again later after i think about it some more.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.