Chapter 4: Paranoia

[P]aranoiac delusions bear a disconcerting, embar-rassing resemblance to the beliefs held and propagated by founders of religions, by political leaders, and by some artists. … There must, it seems, be some as yet unformulated relationship between the psychology of paranoia and that of prophets and leaders.iThe Oxford Companion to the Mind (1987)

The paranoiac explores, in game-theoretic fashion, the possibilities of all encounters. … Otherwise put, the paranoid schizophrenic is routinely engaged in interpreting the world in terms of a game-theoretic model.iiS. M. Lyman & M. B. Scott, A Sociology of the Absurd, 2nd Ed. (1989)

Thought policeHow is it possible for an innocent American, living here in the “land of the free” to not only be imprisoned, but also tortured with eighty five electrocutions and artificial comas for things such as withdrawal, having religious preoccupations, and not working? Perspective developing clues can be found by pondering the symptoms themselves. We’ll limit our review to the three just mentioned.

Withdrawal: Do Americans have the right to be alone? Yes they do—unless, however, they don’t. Said differently, just as Thoughtpolice incarcerate people in Oceania for things like ownlife (which is not openly declared forbidden), so also Deviancepolice incarcerate people in America for things like withdrawal (which is like-wise not declared forbidden). And if a person is raised since a small child to hold the solid conviction in his guaranteed freedom to live his life as he sees fit (as Leonard was), then when he withdraws into ownlife, and is then suddenly thrust into the paradox of American freedom, his intense, predictable reaction will only strengthen the paradox—it will be used to justify the application of symptom-inducing treatments, such as neurotoxic drugs and suicide-inducing surveillance.

In the beginning we saw, as the encyclopedia put it, that “when people are cut off from communication with other people there is a strong tendency to develop hallucinations similar to those of schizo-phrenia.” Whether being cut off is voluntary or not makes little difference. The point is that withdrawal is both a symptom and a cause of schizophrenia. If you withdraw from others, then you might act like a schizophrenic; if you have schizophrenia, it might make you withdraw from others. How on earth can withdrawal be both a source and a product of schizophrenia? In the spirit of the revealing quotes above, let’s try comparing our paranoiac with not just any “artist,” but a grandmaster:

Nothing can be accomplished without solitude …iii –Pablo Picasso

If Picasso, the most influential artist of the twentieth century (as well as millions of other creative people) highly recommends solitude for personal development; if as one of Picasso’s many biographers, Hans Jaffe, stated: “… solitude was the root of Picasso’s independence; it also accounts for the fact that in his … work he followed no rules, was bound by no routine. For him art was always an adventure …,”iv then why do psychiatrists call “withdrawal” a “symptom” of an illness? (Of course, withdrawal could mean simply sitting quietly in the corner, ignoring everyone and everything. Some people call this catatonia, while others call it meditation or trance.) Leonard’s description of his “psycho-sis” in his own words sounds remarkably like an adventure that follows no rules and is bound by no routine, except that Leonard’s involved books instead of paint:

I started borrowing books from the library and buying new books. There was no pre-arranged course of study; it just seemed like one book led to another, one discovery led to another. Soon I was busy re-thinking everything; what was happening to me was that I was busy being born. …

It was very exciting! The entire process seemed so natural. What guidance I needed came from within myself. I don’t remember even seeking it; it was just there, somehow anticipating my needs before I experienced them. It was as though I was floating along a river of enchantment and excitement, never knowing what to expect as I approached each bend … From books and from deep inside myself either intuitively or by way of dreams, new ideas—or at least that were new to me—tumbled into my mind, but I never felt lost or confused. I simply mulled them over, selected out the best ones and began applying them in my own life.

In short order, I got away from being materialistic and became more idealistic and spiritual.v

Picasso lived for many years in virtual poverty (his famous Blue Period) when he composed paintings that at the time were not worth any substantial amount, but eventually came to be worth great fortunes. Leonard Frank may not be a master of the creative process, but then again, on the one hand he was never given the chance; on the other, does he really have to be a “master” of creativity? So he decided to switch from the real-estate business to a personal creative exploration and study of books—where’s the disease?

According to Jungian psychoanalyst and psychiatrist Anthony Storr, “The majority of poets, novelists, composers, … painters and sculptors, are bound to spend a great deal of their time alone … Current wisdom, especially that propagated by the various schools of psycho-analysis, assumes that … interpersonal relationships of an intimate kind are the chief, if not the only, source of human happiness. Yet the lives of creative individuals often seem to run counter to this assumption. … This is true of Descartes, Newton, Locke, Pascal, Spinoza, Kant, Leibniz, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein.”vi

Withdrawal is silently forbidden in a very similar way that monologging is. This should in no way surprise us since both monologging and withdrawal can be powerful roots of independence. They both help to develop the ability to think and act in-dependently. Then again, what else should we expect of an auto-catalysis—a self-generating process—something that is both the source as well as the product of itself? Should we then be surprised to find that this is the basic meaning of both the traditional translation of the Jewish and Christian deity’s name Yahweh (“I am that I am”/self-generation), as well as the image of his enemy, the Serpent (symbolized universally as a snake emerging from His own mouth by speaking Himself into existence/self-generation)? And this convenient little coincidence brings us to Leonard’s …

Religious preoccupations: Imagine a person suddenly developing “objective and scientific” preoccupations while living in a culture that is utterly devoted to “subjective and religious” matters. This person would be perceived as aberrant by others just as Leonard was in the reverse situation here in America. I don’t care if you’re a devout theist or a militant atheist. It makes no difference. When people can be told what mental/emotional/spiritual events can take place within the privacy of their own bodies, they can be described in many ways, but “free” is certainly not one of them. Saying that an experience is un-normal or ab-orthodox in the absence of disease can simply mean that it’s forbidden.

Observers of Leonard found him, like most psychiatric prisoners, to be “incomprehensible.” This gives us another fine opportunity to compare the modern with the ancient. Just as the ancient priest (as well as the shaman and medicine man of primary cultures around the world today) would project the sins of the community into the candidate for segregation, and then cast him from the community, so does the modern psychiatrist. Because the psychiatrist enjoys a certain social status, prestige, power over others, etcetera, he chooses to avoid the obvious honesty of “I can’t understand this person.” Instead, he projects this inability, his deficiency (objectified sin) into the candidate for segregation while announcing, “He is incomprehensible” (as if it were a thing in the person), and then casts him from the community. Only a god can say, “Because I can’t understand this person, then no one else can!” As Dr. Weil put it, “A high priest of technological medicine, enthroned in his temple, had uttered the equivalent of a shamanic curse, for doctors in our culture are invested with the very same power others project onto shamans and priests.”vii

What’s most ridiculous, however, about the psychiatric assault on people’s religious interests and experiences is that the year following Leonard’s release, 1963, AMA suddenly adopted the belief that religion should assist in treating disease. By the following year, 1964, “… there were forty-two state medical associations which had approved formation of Committees on Medicine and Religion.”viii In other words, AMA underwent its own religious trans-formation and officially bonded with the god of the Bible. So APA was persecuting people for under going “spiritual renewal” while AMA was “finding religion” and joining in “clinical matrimony” with Yahweh.

Not working: Was Leonard really refusing to work, or do they really mean that he wasn’t selling his labor for an immediate profit? It is the simple difference between work which made him feel alive as opposed to work that came to suck the life right out of him. While most of us may be inclined to believe that it is an individual’s personal decision concerning what type of work is best for him or her, it really depends on certain social factors; on whether or not it dis-eases others emotionally. As Leonard put it to Farber in his 1991 interview: Even “… today, many people … would think that the very fact that I wasn’t working, when I could have been if I wanted to, indicates that there was something very wrong with me. Once you stop working, or stop going to school, you’re almost immediately going to raise suspicions about yourself. The underlying assumption is that … either you’re physically sick, which was ruled out in my case, or ‘mentally sick’.”ix

The same year Farber interviewed Leonard, Anthony Robbins stated, in his national best seller Awaken the Giant Within (1991):

I often ask people who complain about their jobs, “Why did you go to work today?” Their answer usually is, “Because I had to.” You and I need to remember one thing: there is virtually nothing that we have to do in this country. You certainly don’t have to go to work. Not here! And you certainly don’t have to work at a particular location on a particular day. Not in America! … You can decide to do something else, something new, today. Right now you can make a decision …x

That is precisely what Leonard did! Here we have a pristine snapshot of The Greatest Amerikan Paradox. Leonard made the very decision Robbins encourages millions of Americans to make, and suffered greatly for it. He was raised to hold solid the belief (shared by Robbins) in certain basic, unalterable rights, and then lost those rights in a manner that contradicted those rights. In fact, anyone can read in an encyclopedia that historically, only 25 percent of the asylum population was made up of the privately committed, like Ed and Leonard, while 75 percent was composed of “paupers,” or those who were not working:

One major reason for the asylum’s lack of [therapeutic] success was that the problems which confronted … [its’ managers] were not specifically medical, but had a large social component. The problems of lunacy were closely related to the problems of pauperism, as 75 percent of the insane came under the poor law authorities. xi

In plain English, this means that a huge population of poor people (who were actually forced into poverty in the first place) was legally removed from public sight by declaring them insane. When we say that people do not get locked up in America for things like “not working,” what is implicit is that said people are “normal” or “orthodox”; when people who lose this status are locked up for not working, it doesn’t count because they’re not really people any more.

Leonard went on to summarize: “In short, if you’re earning a living—if you’re playing the game—almost anything goes; if you’re not, almost nothing does. People dropping out of the game is very frightening to those remaining in it. People dropping out without sanctions would set a bad example from the standpoint of the stick-it-outs. If the dropouts aren’t punished, similarly inclined people might be encouraged to follow their example, and soon the game might have to be called for lack of players …”xii

Speaking of modeling a deviant, consider again Roger Bannister—one with sanctions. The most significant aspect of Roger’s breaking the four-minute mile, according to Robbins, lies in what it did for others. By providing people with an example of “doing the impossible,” within only a couple of years, 337 other people modeled Roger and likewise did what was for thousands of years known to be impossible.xiii To prevent Leonard from being a silently forbidden example that others might model, therefore, psychiatrists erased his memory. This made it much easier to “control his symptoms” and to gradually “re-align him like a tire” with others as psychiatrists imagined he had originally been. As he told Farber: “These so-called treatments literally wiped out all my memory for the two-year period preceding the last procedure. The period of self-conversion, except for its early stages, was erased from my mind in a brainwashing procedure tyrants from all ages would have envied. … My memory had been so devastated by the shocking that afterwards I was surprised to find out that John F. Kennedy was President of the United States, although he had been elected two years earlier. … I realized that my high school and college were all but gone; educationally, I was at about an eighth grade level. … I had been reduced—more or less—to the person the evaluating psychiatrist thought that I had been…. That was their standard of ‘success’.”xiv He then added: “Returning to consciousness that last time was the worst, most painful experience of my life. The only reason why it stuck in my memory was that there was no succeeding shocks to blot it out.”xv

Realize that just as APA assaults many people for having religious preoccupations, while AMA has become preoccupied with religion—so also AMA considers electrocution, stabbing (lobotomy), and comas as medical emergencies, while APA strategically applies these things as psychiatric treatments. Stabbing a brain or inducing a coma to heal a disorderly mind is no different than prescribing a hefty dose of arsenic to cure a long bout of insomnia.

Was Leonard a potential religious/political leader on an artistic learning adventure, or simply a paranoiac? Was he really subjected to the psychiatric inquisition for things like “growing a beard,” having “piercing eyes,” and “becoming a vegetarian,” or were these just tell-tale signs that there might be silently forbidden changes occurring inside him?

Leonard Frank was not imprisoned in 1962 because he was “ill,” for even if he was, being “ill” does not in any way explain his incarceration. He was not imprisoned for being dangerous, because he wasn’t. And he was not imprisoned simply because of the list of psychiatric absurdities he found in their records of him.

So why was he really incarcerated?

One simple solution is to recognize that Leonard was violating the Biblical commandment to honor the will of his parents, then got punished. After all, if American parents could actually have their children imprisoned for disobeying biblical commandments, wouldn’t the conscious reason need to be something quite different in order to maintain the “normal” or “orthodox” belief in individual freedom—something objectively unverifiable such as the former possession of the soul or today’s disorder of the mind?

Going a little deeper, we can propose that Leonard was confined to preserve the stability of his parents—specifically his father. His father’s self-image depended on all that he possessed, and prominent among this mass of things was his son’s admirable conformance to the ideal economically dictated standard: The Norm. His very stability was dependent on his control of his property, including his son. As Leonard continued to “deviate” (“deteriorate”) his father gradually approached his emotional threshold of tolerance. The longer Leonard continued doing his own thing, the stronger his father’s dependency on his control of his son clashed with his modern belief in his own independence. Eventually something had to collapse: His father’s modern belief, or Leonard’s new independence.

Consider this relationship as described by Noyes’ Modern Clinical Psychiatry (1973):

If behavior has been disturbed and promises to threaten later social acceptance, prompt admission for hospital treatment is indicated.xvi

The phrase “threaten social acceptance” is a clear admission of a non-medical problem. A more accurate and straightforward translation would be: “If behavior has been disturbing to others and is certain to threaten the stability of others, then prompt con-finement in the psychiatric readjustment center to induce amnesia and realign with others is necessary.” The segregate is responsible for the emotional stability of others, while said others are responsible for the body of the segregate. This is one reason why the segregate’s nonorganic infliction—according to a definition possessing neither legal nor medical significance—is called a functional disorder, meaning that either he is not functioning as others expect, or his presence hinders the functioning of others.

To expand this line of thought, consider the deviance of the American colonists from the control of their father, The Father of all Anglo-Americans, King George III. Like Leonard, the American colonists had developed a taste for individual initiative and in-dependence, and also like Leonard, they exercised their liberty. And just like Leonard’s father, King George attempted to regain control of His distant disobedient children, but unlike Mr. Frank, George failed, and gradually proceeded to lose his stability and his mind. In the movie, The Madness of King George, for example, which begins in 1788, the King shares with one of his close subjects: “I have had no peace of mind since we lost America.” Afterward, after running through the palace late one night during his first manic flight of rambling non-sense, and then a fit of verbal abuse of the queen, she caringly asked him, “Do you think that you are mad?” He then calmed, and answered softly:

I don’t know. I don’t know. Madness isn’t such a torment. Madness isn’t half-blind. Madmen can’t stand; they skip; they dance. I talk. Talk, and talk, and talk. I hear the words; I have to speak them; to empty my head of the words. Something has happened. Something is not right.

Offering some insight into His dilemma, an encyclopedia states: “Much of his reign was spent in conflict with the Whig oligarchy in Parliament…. Ironically, He became the American colonists’ principal symbol of English oppression, although Whig policy was really responsible.”xvii If the encyclopedia is correct, and He was innocent of the extent of oppression His rebelling children perceived in Him, then would it not seem reasonable that He found absolutely no reason to lose His children’s obedience, and thus His control? Keep in mind that the king is “The” representative of All Mighty God in English society. He represents The Infallible! So when His children suddenly revolt for reasons that are not actually His doing (while possibly remaining in the dark as to why they blame Him), might this strain His emotional tolerance and stability? Put simply, what the King firmly believed was impossible, was contradicted by what actually happened. He gradually lost control of his children, and then gradually lost control of His mind. (No doubt I am greatly oversimplifying it, but the gist is accurate.)

This partial explanation works well for most deviants. For example, Ed might need one act of electrocution to the brain to induce amnesia, as his condition was a single realization event occurring just before his “possession” by secular witch burners. A single zap or two, forced drugging, and intimidation into role playing (with a high probability of his eager submission to the All-Knowing Psychiatrists, enthroned in their Allopathic Temple, speaking Psychiatreese, uttering their secular-shamanic curses), would probably be sufficient to realign him with others as he had been previously. If not, they merely continue with their flurry of arguments until he caves in like a “normal” house of cards. Leonard, on the other hand, spent two whole years in spontaneous “deviant” learning, and therefore required a lot more effort, time, and amnesia to wipe it out.

Why? What silently forbidden thoughts or ideas could have been gestating in his mind? What might he have been learning that could possibly justify such an assault? What sort of mental/emotional /spiritual events was he host to that was such a desperate secret (Orwell’s “central” secret?) that he had to be sacrificed to keep it unknown? Just as we compared some of Leonard’s psychiatric criteria with that of Orwell’s Thoughtpolice, let’s now consider briefly some key selections from the interrogation of Winston by O’Brien, an agent of the Thoughtpolice:

Even now, I am well aware, you are clinging to your disease under the impression that it is a virtue.xviii

You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one.xix

Winston was aware of some heavy piece of apparatus being pushed into place behind his head. … Two soft pads, which felt slightly moist, clamped themselves against Winston’s temples. … A terrific, painless blow had flattened him out. Also something had happened inside his head. … [S]omewhere or other there was a large patch of emptiness, as though a piece had been taken out of his brain.xx

You could grasp the mechanics of the society you lived in, but not its underlying motives. Do you remember writing in your diary, ‘I understand how; I do not understand why? It was when you thought about ‘why’ that you doubted your own sanity.xxi

Winston, like Leonard, considered his inquisitive outlook a good thing, but O’Brien, like psychiatrists, regarded it as something to be extinguished—a rare, minority-of-one virtuous disease of asking “why?” When King George was mad, for example, madness was widely known as the English disease (because it followed the English wherever they went) and also as “… ‘a disease of the learned’. … Idleness and solitude [a.k.a. not working and withdrawal] were both to be avoided on the grounds that they provided a fertile breeding-ground for the imagination.”xxii Leonard and Winston both had very active imaginations. They wondered deeply about the “underlying motives” of their respective societies, and both were forced in a similar way to stop their yearning to understand.

Since it is often much easier for people to see in other cultures what they have difficulty seeing in their own, we’ll adopt a foreign factual analogy as a foundation for approaching and understanding the potential power of this most rare and dangerous of all deviances—and why some seem so desperate to eliminate it. Said differently, just as Orwell fleshed his fiction over a factual skeleton, we’ll try to imagine what he may have had in mind behind Oceania’s central secret by also fleshing a hypothetical situation over a fascinating historical puzzle as our factual skeleton. Psychologist Julian Jaynes of Princeton University has framed this puzzle for us nicely with a simple question:

How could … [the Inca] empire whose armies had triumphed over the civilizations of half a continent be captured by a small band of 150 Spaniards in the early evening of November 16, 1532? xxiii

How indeed? How did Francisco Pizarro conquer the mightiest empire of South America in a single evening with only a boat load of 150 men? “The unsuspicious meekness of the surrender …” Jaynes added, “… has long been the most fascinating problem of the European invasions of America. The fact that it occurred is clear, but the record as to why is grimy with supposition …”xxiv

(Uh-oh, there’s that word again.)

This is what Pizarro did: First he predicted a lunar eclipse, and then staged a timed performance in front of the head Inca—the God-King of the Sun!—making it seem as though his god, Yahweh, actually caused it. He made the moon vanish! Or so it seemed. Since the Inca did not know eclipse prediction, Pizarro was able to instantly wipe out the will of the most powerful empire of South America by striking terror in them with a simple staged trick. After all, if the mightiest of all the Inca became terrified, fear would spread like falling dominoes. Just consider how it must have seemed from the point of view of the Inca. In their eyes …

these rough, milk-skinned men with hair drooling from their chins instead of from their scalps so that their heads looked upside down, clothed in metal, with avertive eyes, riding strange llamalike creatures with silver hoofs, having arrived like gods in gigantic huampus tiered like Mochican temples over the sea which to the Inca was unsailable …xxv

had just made the moon disappear!

As a result of being catatonic with fear of such power…

the Inca and his lords were captured like helpless automatons. And as its people mechanically watched, this shipload of … men stripped the gold sheathing of the holy city, melted down its golden images and all the treasures of the Golden Enclosure, … murdered its living god and its princes, raped its unprotesting women, and … sailed away with the yellow metal into the subjective conscious value system from which they had come.xxvi

The key words in Jaynes question are “early evening” because Christopher Columbus had pulled the very same deception when he was stranded in Jamaica twenty eight years earlier, in the early evening of February 26, 1504.xxvii Columbus used this trick to terrify the Jamaicans into providing him and his men with a steady food supply. The Jamaicans had voluntarily been feeding them already. But the selfish abusiveness of his men drove the Jamaicans to withhold food, and this just made them even more unruly and mutinous. Put simply, Columbus and his men got themselves into a life or death situation, and then Columbus cleverly saved them from starvation. Once Columbus returned to Spain, bragging about how easy and effective it was to gain such control over the natives’ emotions and bodies, wouldn’t the Spaniards decide to make it a rule (if they hadn’t already) to schedule invasions of other cultures to coincide with eclipses whenever possible?

Now let’s allow our forbidden imaginations to wander for a moment, and pretend that Columbus enjoyed so much his power over and control of the natives (and the climate) that he decided against repairing his damaged boat. Instead, he and his followers would stay to build an empire of his own: Columbusdom. He didn’t want to be subject to the dominion of someone else any longer; he wanted to be The King. So Columbus and his immediate des-cendants would gradually form their own kingdom, whose very growth and stability would be utterly dependent on their control of the natives; while said servitude being dependent on eliminating any and all possibility of the natives ever learning to discriminate (to make the vital distinction) between eclipse prediction (the secret trick) and performing as the cause (the public perception).

To understand how he might accomplish this, we must first realize that life in powerful, complex societies is governed by two distinct sets of rules. One set of rules governs outer behavior, while the other set of rules governs inner behavior—legal vs. normal—and each has its own form of processing center—prison vs. asylum. Laws are “declared” and “written,” so we are quite conscious of them. Norms, on the other hand, are not declared and written; they’re all those silent little rules of behavior that everyone “just knows” without really knowing that they know. People obey norms without paying much attention to them; we’re only conscious of them when they are violated. People become diseased emotionally when norms are breached, while the breacher is imagined as a leper, witch, heretic, mentally ill, or whatever is fashionable in that particular time and place. What’s crucial to understand is that these rules may contradict each other. For example, laws may protect certain behavior, while norms may forbid that same behavior under certain conditions. (Ed, for example, spoke the truth in saying that millions of Americans are working hard to save the planet while waiting for it to be destroyed at any moment, but he violated a norm in doing so. This was evidenced by his observers’ loss of emotional stability. This loss of stability over-rode the law that protects freedom of speech, resulting in Ed’s losing his right to speak his mind.

The first thing Columbus would do, then, would be to maintain and strictly enforce an unspoken rule forbidding discussion of the secret subject of the eclipse. After all, to speak of it would necessarily entail being conscious of it, so he would eliminate the subject from social discourse in order to eliminate it from his citizens’ awareness. (As the word allopathy is missing from the dictionary?). At the same time he would brand/label/stereotype anyone who even attempted to discuss the secret subject as the Dreadful Jamaican (analogous to the American Psycho or the Oceanic Thoughtcriminal). Anyone violating such a rule would be immediately turned in (without breaking any laws) and savagely punished, maybe even killed for his silently forbidden speech. By enforcing this dual-rule-system, everyone would gradually forget all about what happened and how—except, of course, the dominating elite. And as they strove more and more to eliminate any chance of loosing their control of others (on which their in-dependence was utterly dependent), their goal would be to eliminate within their slaves the very ability and willingness to think too independently. So behaviors such as talking to oneself and being alone too long would gradually become taboo, as those behaviors would provide a fertile breeding ground for the imagination. What’s more, with the elimination of solitude, everyone would then unconsciously keep each other under constant surveillance, as no one would really be alone long enough for their minds to wonder very far. To paraphrase historian and philo-sopher Michel Foucault, “the normalcy police would be everywhere.”

The crowning achievement, however, would be a system that practically ran itself. On top of enforcing unconscious taboos on things that develop mental independence, people would gradually be encouraged to be consciously convinced of their right to speak their free and independent minds. This way everyone would believe in their protected individual freedom to speak of any sudden realizations (such as eclipse prediction, for example) that might suddenly pop into their minds (as happened to Ed). At the same time, the socially conditioned fear of and reaction to the Dreadful Jamaican would automatically have them removed from the eyes and ears of the public—at least until ways of inducing amnesia were devised, along with speech and thought controling chemicals, allowing said deviants to be gradually realigned with others as reasonable facsimiles of normalcy.

Because the subjects that lie at the crux of the secret matter (at the intersection between Law and Norm) are consciously avoided by the obedient orthodoxy of Columbusdom, it wouldn’t really matter what anyone said otherwise, as all orthodox discourse always steers wide and clear of the forbidden—the secret subjects would be simply unthinkable. Given enough time, say a few centuries, such a social experiment could come to epitomize the very quest for power, control, progress, and hence “Modernity.”

But how might this situation seem from the point of view of the Dreadful Jamaican? I see two basic alternatives: Either he sees the interplay between the two sets of rules, or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, then he may find himself sacrificed into a madness manu-facturing contradiction. If he does, to paraphrase psychiatrist R. D. Laing, he might say, “I see that we’re playing The Game. If they see that I see that we’re playing The Game, they will punish me. So I’ll play a game of pretending not to see that we’re playing The Game.” Realizing that trying to verbalize it is sheer folly, he’d fall on the only alternative available (save begging someone to electrocute him into amnesia). His only valid path would be to very carefully use metaphor, analogy, and facts, so he would probably first turn to books just like Leonard, and perhaps eventually, little by little, compose his warning for others in writing just like Orwell.



Never forget that the simple difference between predicting an eclipse and performing as its cause is the same basic difference as that between the reality of Leonard and the category the orthodoxy is conscious of. And since the category is always a subjective matter—meaning that as the time, the place, and the observers change, so does the mask of the so-called condition—anyone, under just the right circumstances, can find themselves trapped in The Greatest Amerikan Paradox.



I do not understand why Orwell would present so much misery and suffering in 1984, and then portray the process of wiping out Winston Smith’s memory as “painless.” If you can, please enlighten me: write2me Thanks.

i P. 577.

ii P. 107.

iii Jaffe, p. 9.

iv Ibid, italics added.

v Farber, p. 191-92.

vi Storr, p. ix.

vii Weil, p. 63.

viii O’Hair, p. 240-41, italics added.

ix Farber, p. 193, italics added.

x P. 35, italics added, bold removed.

xi OCM, p. 53, italics added.

xii Farber, p. 193-94.

xiii Robbins, p. 81.

xiv Farber, p. 195-96.

xv Ibid, p. 197, italics added.

xvi Szasz, 1976, p. 88.

xvii NADE, p.498

xviii Orwell, 1949, p. 203.

xix Ibid, p. 205.

xx Ibid, p. 211-12.

xxi Ibid, p. 215, italics added.

xxii OCM, p. 372, italics added.

xxiii Jaynes, p. 160.

xxiv Ibid, italics added.

xxv Ibid.

xxvi Ibid.

xxvii Calvin, p. 4-5.