I feel that another important corollary of Jingle dance is the logical viability of Orwellian doublethink. Doublethink is, from the mouth of Winston Smith, "To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed." Well, maybe I don't mean exactly that. Certainly some parts of it - to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to know and not to know - follow exactly along the lines of Jingle dance and Determinism in denial. Let me try to clarify: Building on Jingle dance, which says that all thoughts and observations are equally baseless and unsubstantiable, I'd argue that the act of maintaining any single belief for a prolonged period of time has little to no inherent value. While formal logic may be of a higher plane than our universe, (one to which perhaps even God is bound, although that isn't really a conversation for here) we lack the truly hard facts required to apply it meaningfully to our experience of the world. As such, we cannot possibly hope to resolve perceived contradictions in our lived experiences; any effort to do so is futile, since we are starting out from unstable logical ground, and any apparent conclusion we come to is actually as meaningless as either original supposition. There are many times, then, when we may find it convenient or helpful to accept contradictory hypotheses or interpretations simultaneously. There is no reason we should not indulge in this practice to whatever extent it may benefit us! If I am struggling to understand my place in the world, to reconcile my conception of myself as a whole individual and as one tiny piece of a larger society, I need not work so hard. I can let go of that effort, futile as it is, and choose between the seemingly contradictory interpretations as I please, picking one up at an instant and then immediately putting it down and exchanging it for the other as soon as a fraction of a second later. I find it helpful to imagine our world, as we understand it, like an ancient king from an era long past. Let us imagine that there exist two and only two sources describing this king. One claims the king was a tyrant and a monster, cruel to his people and his family and a stain on his nation. The other claims the king was benevolent and kind, supremely compassionate and just and all good things. After an exhaustive search, historians can find no other sources to validate either claim. Neither can they validate the author of either source; they may have even been written by the same person. Each view of the king, then, is equally valid and invalid, and people are free to choose whichever they think more fitting, even though neither interpretation can be said to be more reasonable than the other. I find there are many other instances when apparent contradictions in the world nag at me, and doublethink can be a powerful and logically viable tool in resolving these difficulties. I exist in the world to pursue joy and love - sure. I exist in the world to support and assist those around me - sure! Life is a curse, yes. Life is also a blessing. Addendum: If one were to quibble, as I myself am wont to do, one might say that what I'm suggesting here isn't truly doublethink, since it's not entirely simultaneous contradictions that I'm advocating for, but instead frequent and immediate switching between contradictory interpretations. On that I'd refer back to an old discussion of certainty: when I'm really considering one contradictory interpretation or the other, I'm actually not certain of either. Certainty, the holding of opinions, and the proper simultaneous form of doublethink, occurs when I let both rest, allow myself to leave the contradiction unresolved, and go think about something else. Doublethink can then be said to follow only from this practice of quick switching and noncommittal conclusions.