Ending of 1984

[aspirer]

No, the message Orwell is delivering is that totalitarianism done right will include complete mind control and that the rulers will be able to subjugate even the most basic human emotions into whatever they choose.

That sounds reasonable.

Do you think though that Winston could choose to say "I love BB"? who can ever make you say those words? out of all the possible options of what to say, he realised and learnt and then said that sentence. There's pain from the Party (O'Brien) if he says or thinks anything (negative) else, and acceptance if he says he loves BB. Is there truth/ a message in that?
I see it as loving everything, even what some people hate (or what one previously hated), as the best way to exist in that environment. Forgiveness.
That is something Winston learnt.

aspirer, you have to realize that it would no longer be winston, once that sort of "learning" occurs. what is happening to winston is de-humanizing. he is not being encouraged to look at the world in a new and healthy way. the absence of mind might be said to be love by some gurus, but that is really just (relatively benign) brainwashing--and a very marketable premise for a book in this high-speed, high-stress modern world!

winston is being taught that his thoughts and feelings are the property of the party. he is to become a "piece" of a whole. he will be disempowered, and the whole will get a little bit more empowered. at the very least, its methods won't be invalidated by his "individual" existence.

it is, of course, good to reappraise things from time to time, and to be as alert as possible to different perspectives. that can help us change, when we need to change. but this argument is a sort of "fig-leaf of virtue." such a truth is no excuse to re-program a person against their will. if the motives were good, there would surely be some way to carry out the "re-education" without resorting to torture. really, they should be able to verbally convince people of it's necessity and/or usefulness. if it's a good idea, then it would be able to survive in a rational debate. but the strong-armed, dehumanizing methods of the party invalidate the project that you are suggesting.

i believe the most advanced forms of love are enhanced by the individuality of those who feel it. big brother reduces individuality, and seeks a conforming, pliable populace. an automatic instinct to feel love, for anyone and everyone, is a wonderful ideal. but to accomplish such a thing via torture and mind-control betrays an underlying culture that knows nothing of love or respect of the individual. anyhow, such a complete surrender to no-mind is already accomplished to vary degrees by cockroaches, amoebas, and dogs. people are different, and things aren't so simple.

winston did not get a superior mode of being. like theAtheist said, he became conditioned to confuse his old notion of "love" with subservience to the pressures in his environment. as an individual, he died. he has been reduced to being another component in a machine that demands subservience.

Thanks for your perspective. Some thought provoking responses.
Agreed that the methods by the party are not optimal (using pain).
A distinction between humans and animals, insects etc is self-awareness - the capacity to realise ones shortcomings and replace them with a more intelligent way. What could one be more self-aware about then ones own thoughts? which though by cruel methods, did results in would you agree - the ideal attitude?
true the machine demanded subservience, and Winston instead of clashing, gave love. He was the machine/animal/insect/amoeba which are without self-awareness, now he is free.
what is more intelligent - living in a world hating or living in a world loving?
The question then is did he truly love BB? or was he forced to say those words? Did he believe the words he said?

[mollie]

Winston is not free. His spirit has been annihilated. He is no longer truly human, but an automaton. He has been programmed, as my computer has, to act in certain ways. One of those ways is to love Big Brother.

He believes the words he said, and he believes he utters them willingly. However, he has no more free will than a window or door. His words are sincere, but they are meaningless. If the Party told him tomorrow to hate Big Brother, he would do that, and with the same sincerity.

[billl]

which though by cruel methods, did results in would you agree - the ideal attitude?

I think the ideal attitude (for real life) would be one in which an individual could speculate, trust, and distrust. To simply have love for everything would not be ideal, because we are in a world too complicated and nuanced for that. For example, it is good that we get sick and avoid food that would kill us if we ate it. If we are in the presence of a loud noise, it is best to cover our ears. If a virus infects us, we find ways to eliminate it. Propaganda-wielding despots are opposed. We protect ourselves.

Winston is right to resist, because the torture and re-programming are harming him physically and teaching him to accept lies about the world. In a perfect world (too perfect perhaps), it would, in theory be fine for everyone to completely love each other, no matter what. But I see no reason to believe that Big Brother (a rather prominent member of Winston's world) actually loves anyone or anything--unless abuse, torture, and distortions of reality are believed to be forms of love. By surrendering to Big Brother, Winston has not helped to bring about a world of universal love. He has, instead, fallen victim to a great debasement of the word "love." I think it's pretty obvious that torture, abuse, and the destruction of individuality are terrible precedents for any march towards a "better" or "more loving" world. An "ideal" society could do much better than that.

I have heard of a word called "agape," which refers to the sort of love aspirer seems to be talking about. I think this sort of love is wonderful and important, and that everyone should investigate it. But I think it would be foolish for us to give up our more personal, more individual, more-richly-filled-by-experience forms of love for our friends, mates, and families. A pre-disposition to love all others is a great idea, however, and I'm not really opposed to it. But that is different than the horrible reflex/habit that has been forced on Winston.

I think it is useful to think of people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King, and their response to oppressive systems. They resisted and interfered with the efficiency and acceptance of the oppressing entities. They did not surrender. And I think they understood the love for others that you have been talking about. Winston was right to resist Big Brother because it is the single greatest impediment to love and respect of individuals in his world.

In a church or temple (or in our home, etc.) we might gain much by exploring the abstract ideas of universal oneness, and universal love. But, like many ideals, these could be abused by those who wish to deceive us and and control us. It seems to me that Big Brother is teaching Winston that an entity committed to violence against him should be loved. This love is made more important to him than his love for anyone or anything else. It follows that Winston would then believe that violence and torture were acceptable means for bringing more love into the world. If one is ready to believe that torture, pain, and disrespect for individuals can be an acceptable foundation for love, then I think one will have been prepared to commit (or accept) any crime against others. The word "love" will have come to have a contradictory ("doublethink") quality. Violence/harm to an individual becomes joined with "love" for the individual. It is, really, a destruction of love. The word "love" would have simply been re-defined by those with superior power.

So, no, I don't think Winston has achieved an ideal attitude--although the operators of the torture devices will, by necessity believe that they and Winston have achieved an ideal state.

By the way, I'm not sure why someone would come to Big Brother's defense here (maybe just a playful thought-experiment? ), but I think a VERY generous spirit should be careful not to invest itself too much in the "entrancing" writings/techniques of some self-help "experts/assistants." When the pressure builds, it can be tempting to find ultimate solace in "no-mind" and "living in the moment," but these states, when carried into daily life, can leave us quite vulnerable to outside suggestion. The torture carried out by Big Brother is a very obvious form of abuse/mind control, but sometimes religions, cults, governments, advertisers, gurus, door-to-door salesmen, website designers, etc. can be much more subtle and gentle in their deceit--even "friendly." And, I suppose, for some of them, their own commitment to an "ideal" might leave them blind to the detrimental effects they might happen to have on others in the real world. Again, I think "no-mind" and "living in the moment" can be useful strategies, but they should not be the only ones available to us.

Now, maybe more than ever, in a world containing more and more "virtuality," I think it is important for us to retain control over our thoughts and judgments, and not get carried away by out-of-place appeals to love or fear. We might be presented with some safe-seeming slippery slopes, but an all-out commitment to abstract ideals can damage our footing quickly in the presence of well-crafted come-ons.

[Gladys]

Forgiveness. That is something Winston learnt.

Not so much forgiveness as the deranged and paralytic dread of horrific, non-stop torture.

[aspirer]

Winston is not free. His spirit has been annihilated. He is no longer truly human, but an automaton. He has been programmed, as my computer has, to act in certain ways. One of those ways is to love Big Brother.

He believes the words he said, and he believes he utters them willingly. However, he has no more free will than a window or door. His words are sincere, but they are meaningless. If the Party told him tomorrow to hate Big Brother, he would do that, and with the same sincerity.

What about this quote from '84, the last line:

"He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother"
Is that George Orwell/the narrator commentating or Winston thinking in your opinion?

I think the ideal attitude (for real life) would be one in which an individual could speculate, trust, and distrust. To simply have love for everything would not be ideal, because we are in a world too complicated and nuanced for that. For example, it is good that we get sick and avoid food that would kill us if we ate it. If we are in the presence of a loud noise, it is best to cover our ears. If a virus infects us, we find ways to eliminate it. Propaganda-wielding despots are opposed. We protect ourselves.

Winston is right to resist, because the torture and re-programming are harming him physically and teaching him to accept lies about the world. In a perfect world (too perfect perhaps), it would, in theory be fine for everyone to completely love each other, no matter what. But I see no reason to believe that Big Brother (a rather prominent member of Winston's world) actually loves anyone or anything--unless abuse, torture, and distortions of reality are believed to be forms of love. By surrendering to Big Brother, Winston has not helped to bring about a world of universal love. He has, instead, fallen victim to a great debasement of the word "love." I think it's pretty obvious that torture, abuse, and the destruction of individuality are terrible precedents for any march towards a "better" or "more loving" world. An "ideal" society could do much better than that.

I have heard of a word called "agape," which refers to the sort of love aspirer seems to be talking about. I think this sort of love is wonderful and important, and that everyone should investigate it. But I think it would be foolish for us to give up our more personal, more individual, more-richly-filled-by-experience forms of love for our friends, mates, and families. A pre-disposition to love all others is a great idea, however, and I'm not really opposed to it. But that is different than the horrible reflex/habit that has been forced on Winston.

I think it is useful to think of people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King, and their response to oppressive systems. They resisted and interfered with the efficiency and acceptance of the oppressing entities. They did not surrender. And I think they understood the love for others that you have been talking about. Winston was right to resist Big Brother because it is the single greatest impediment to love and respect of individuals in his world.

In a church or temple (or in our home, etc.) we might gain much by exploring the abstract ideas of universal oneness, and universal love. But, like many ideals, these could be abused by those who wish to deceive us and and control us. It seems to me that Big Brother is teaching Winston that an entity committed to violence against him should be loved. This love is made more important to him than his love for anyone or anything else. It follows that Winston would then believe that violence and torture were acceptable means for bringing more love into the world. If one is ready to believe that torture, pain, and disrespect for individuals can be an acceptable foundation for love, then I think one will have been prepared to commit (or accept) any crime against others. The word "love" will have come to have a contradictory ("doublethink") quality. Violence/harm to an individual becomes joined with "love" for the individual. It is, really, a destruction of love. The word "love" would have simply been re-defined by those with superior power.

So, no, I don't think Winston has achieved an ideal attitude--although the operators of the torture devices will, by necessity believe that they and Winston have achieved an ideal state.

By the way, I'm not sure why someone would come to Big Brother's defense here (maybe just a playful thought-experiment? ), but I think a VERY generous spirit should be careful not to invest itself too much in the "entrancing" writings/techniques of some self-help "experts/assistants." When the pressure builds, it can be tempting to find ultimate solace in "no-mind" and "living in the moment," but these states, when carried into daily life, can leave us quite vulnerable to outside suggestion. The torture carried out by Big Brother is a very obvious form of abuse/mind control, but sometimes religions, cults, governments, advertisers, gurus, door-to-door salesmen, website designers, etc. can be much more subtle and gentle in their deceit--even "friendly." And, I suppose, for some of them, their own commitment to an "ideal" might leave them blind to the detrimental effects they might happen to have on others in the real world. Again, I think "no-mind" and "living in the moment" can be useful strategies, but they should not be the only ones available to us.

Now, maybe more than ever, in a world containing more and more "virtuality," I think it is important for us to retain control over our thoughts and judgments, and not get carried away by out-of-place appeals to love or fear. We might be presented with some safe-seeming slippery slopes, but an all-out commitment to abstract ideals can damage our footing quickly in the presence of well-crafted come-ons.

sorry about the short answer to a well-thought out long passage by you(short on time at the moment)

surrender can be defined as the absence of resistance/fighting fire with fire etc so its more that I am seeing winstons manner/actions euphymystically and hopefully accurately and realistically according to what the author intended. Thats the current premise I'm providing rationale for.
A loving attitude towards BB goes further than hating it. How would you describe Winstons life now compared to before?

Not so much forgiveness as the deranged and paralytic dread of horrific, non-stop torture.

This can be a description for before room 101,
but afterwards?

[Gladys]

This can be a description for before room 101,
but afterwards?

Before and early in Winston's residence in Room 101, he is understandably terrified of torture.

Afterwards, he experiences an all-consuming, never-ending 'deranged and paralytic dread'...though this understates Winston's trauma. He's an empty shell.

[aspirer]

Before and early in Winston's residence in Room 101, he is understandably terrified of torture.

Afterwards, he experiences an all-consuming, never-ending 'deranged and paralytic dread'...though this understates Winston's trauma. He's an empty shell.

just checked the online copy of 1984 (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/22.html) couldnt find that quote, what chapter is it?

there is 1 example of some positive feelings afterwards: "Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow."

[billl]

aspirer, this is not a story about universal love. Enlightenment and universal love should be sought, not enforced by inescapable torture by a totalitarian entity.

... I am seeing winstons manner/actions euphymystically and hopefully accurately and realistically according to what the author intended. Thats the current premise I'm providing rationale for.
A loving attitude towards BB goes further than hating it. How would you describe Winstons life now compared to before?

Other people involved in the Orwell discussions are more expert than I am, but here are some quotes I found from Orwell (I've seen better ones regarding his intent, but these are two I found on short notice):

-------
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." (quote from a (pre-1984) 1946 essay "Why I Write" in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 - An Age Like This 1920–1940 p.23 (Penguin)

"..The scene of the book [1984] is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere." (From The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 4 - In Front of Your Nose 1945-1950 p.546) (Penguin)
-------

There is no doubt that Orwell was opposed to totalitarianism, and that he intended 1984 to be argument against totalitarianism, with Big Brother as the totalitarian state. If you are reading 1984 as an example for a path to enlightenment, you are not understanding the author's intent. The error would be so great that I really wonder if you're just joking with us here...
Here's another Orwell quote:
" The great enemy of clear language is insincerity "

A loving attitude towards BB goes further than hating it. How would you describe Winstons life now compared to before?

A loving attitude towards Big Brother is the ultimate goal for Big Brother. It is not something that should have made any sense to Winston, and he was right to resist. In the end, he says and feels that he loves Big Brother, but it is a terrible outcome for Winston, the reader and for the world that the story takes place in. Big Brother had more power than Winston, and Big Brother used that power to control and enslave Winston. The ultimate power was found in destroying Winston's defenses to the point where Winston would believe that he loved Big Brother. It is a story of domination.

Compared to before, Winston's life is worse. He has lost his love for his girlfriend. He has been forced to believe that 2+2=5. He has professed love for his torturer and abuser. His ability to correctly perceive and make judgments has been destroyed.

[mollie]

What about this quote from '84, the last line:

"He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother"
Is that George Orwell/the narrator commentating or Winston thinking in your opinion?

I believe that the quote is Winston thinking, but it is Orwell's intention that we the readers should be reading this with despair, realising that the cause of freedom is entirely lost, that there is no hope for humanity.

Aspirer, Winston has been hideously abused. He has quite literally been frightened out of his mind. His grip on reality is gone. He believes that he loves Big Brother, but, when in his right mind, he hates him. He has won no victory. He loves Big Brother in the same way that a bear dances, to escape cruel treatment. What is most sinister about the Party's methods is that Winston actually believes this falsehood.

Yes, Winston's own life is more pleasant for him, personally, and means that he escapes death, at least temporarily. But his submission means that the Party has won, and Orwell is quite clear that the Party, in both its ends and its means, is thoroughly evil and hateful.

[Gladys]

just checked the online copy of 1984 (http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/22.html) couldn't find that quote, what chapter is it?

Aspirer, sorry for the confusion, that quote refers to my previous posts:

Not so much forgiveness as the deranged and paralytic dread of horrific, non-stop torture.

And

Before and early in Winston's residence in Room 101, he is understandably terrified of torture.

Afterwards, he experiences an all-consuming, never-ending 'deranged and paralytic dread'...though this understates Winston's trauma. He's an empty shell.

Finally, Winston is scarcely human and less than sane. You had written, 'Forgiveness. That is something Winston learnt'.

there is 1 example of some positive feelings afterwards: "Winston, sitting in a blissful dream, paid no attention as his glass was filled up. He was not running or cheering any longer. He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow."

These 'positive feelings' are savage irony from the narrator, because Winston becomes nothing more than a crippled zombie: 'then we shall fill you with ourselves'.

[aspirer]

aspirer, this is not a story about universal love. Enlightenment and universal love should be sought, not enforced by inescapable torture by a totalitarian entity.




Other people involved in the Orwell discussions are more expert than I am, but here are some quotes I found from Orwell (I've seen better ones regarding his intent, but these are two I found on short notice):

-------
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." (quote from a (pre-1984) 1946 essay "Why I Write" in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 - An Age Like This 1920–1940 p.23 (Penguin)

"..The scene of the book [1984] is laid in Britain in order to emphasize that the English-speaking races are not innately better than anyone else and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere." (From The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 4 - In Front of Your Nose 1945-1950 p.546) (Penguin)
-------

There is no doubt that Orwell was opposed to totalitarianism, and that he intended 1984 to be argument against totalitarianism, with Big Brother as the totalitarian state. If you are reading 1984 as an example for a path to enlightenment, you are not understanding the author's intent. The error would be so great that I really wonder if you're just joking with us here...
Here's another Orwell quote:
" The great enemy of clear language is insincerity "



A loving attitude towards Big Brother is the ultimate goal for Big Brother. It is not something that should have made any sense to Winston, and he was right to resist. In the end, he says and feels that he loves Big Brother, but it is a terrible outcome for Winston, the reader and for the world that the story takes place in. Big Brother had more power than Winston, and Big Brother used that power to control and enslave Winston. The ultimate power was found in destroying Winston's defenses to the point where Winston would believe that he loved Big Brother. It is a story of domination.

Compared to before, Winston's life is worse. He has lost his love for his girlfriend. He has been forced to believe that 2+2=5. He has professed love for his torturer and abuser. His ability to correctly perceive and make judgments has been destroyed.

I was about to write this:
Does Winston have more freedom now? Does Winston have less fear now? Does Winston have more love and less enemies? Isnt Winston much less of a slave than before? The book contains no passages of Winston increasing anyone else's suffering. Can you admit there are some aspects of his life that are better off? There is a premise here which is being pursued independent of 1 of the purposes of the author which is against totalitarianism (which the quote at the top clearly indicates), that if life is better now that is some evidence that being the best response to evil is love.

But rather I give up....

I believe that the quote is Winston thinking, but it is Orwell's intention that we the readers should be reading this with despair, realising that the cause of freedom is entirely lost, that there is no hope for humanity.

Aspirer, Winston has been hideously abused. He has quite literally been frightened out of his mind. His grip on reality is gone. He believes that he loves Big Brother, but, when in his right mind, he hates him. He has won no victory. He loves Big Brother in the same way that a bear dances, to escape cruel treatment. What is most sinister about the Party's methods is that Winston actually believes this falsehood.

Yes, Winston's own life is more pleasant for him, personally, and means that he escapes death, at least temporarily. But his submission means that the Party has won, and Orwell is quite clear that the Party, in both its ends and its means, is thoroughly evil and hateful.

some good points, and some good insights

Aspirer, sorry for the confusion, that quote refers to my previous posts:



And



Finally, Winston is scarcely human and less than sane. You had written, 'Forgiveness. That is something Winston learnt'.




These 'positive feelings' are savage irony from the narrator, because Winston becomes nothing more than a crippled zombie: 'then we shall fill you with ourselves'.

you could well be right

[mollie]

Hi Aspirer, and thanks for your kind remarks. While I disagree with you about some aspects of your take on 1984, your fresh view has certainly made me think a lot about a novel I really love, and I just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for that, and for prompting me to read 1984 again, which I hadn't done for a year or more.

I was thinking a lot about your points over the week, and it strikes me that your take is similar to Julia's in some ways, though in other important ways, it is very different.

She says to Winston, during a very early conversation with him, that she thinks that it is pointless to work overtly against the Party. She believes that it is more productive to keep your head down, seem to obey the rules and survive, whilst undertaking small and less open acts of rebellion, such as secret love affairs, dealing on the free market etc., as opposed to Winston's more open acts of rebellion. By appearing to love Big Brother, in other words, it is possible to stay in touch with one's humanity and continue to live.

I am interested to know - would you agree with Julia? I understand that your own ideal would be the response of real love in the face of evil, but would you consider this appearance of love, or, as I think you said earlier, loving attitude, to be a better way to rebel against Big Brother?

[Gladys]

She believes that it is more productive to keep your head down, seem to obey the rules and survive, whilst undertaking small and less open acts of rebellion, such as secret love affairs, dealing on the free market etc., as opposed to Winston's more open acts of rebellion. By appearing to love Big Brother, in other words, it is possible to stay in touch with one's humanity and continue to live.

Julia's approach probably fails for the same reason as Winston's. He was under heavy surveillance seven years before his overt rebellion began. So also with Julia?

If so, what hope for her, or indeed anyone? Hope is an illusion in Oceania.

[mollie]

Julia's approach probably fails for the same reason as Winston's. He was under heavy surveillance seven years before his overt rebellion began. So also with Julia?

If so, what hope for her, or indeed anyone? Hope is an illusion in Oceania.

I don't think that it's ever made clear when Julia comes to the notice of the Thought Police, though I'm open to correction on that. Obviously, if they have been following all of her activities, then yes, there is no hope of fighting the Party, either by undermining it or by open revolution, and I incline towards that belief myself.

However, that is not really my question - it was rather, was feigning love of Big Brother, and so surviving, a more effective method of maintaining one's humanity? Again, to clarify, I do not say that it was a more personally productive or effective method of breaking the power of the Party, which I believe to be impossible.

[Gladys]

However, that is not really my question - it was rather, was feigning love of Big Brother, and so surviving, a more effective method of maintaining one's humanity?

As I have implied, Julia survives at the whim of the Inner Party because it seems improbable that her 'feigning love' would fool the party or delay her arrest.

I understand your question to be: Does Julia maintain her humanity better than Winston in the years leading to their arrest? A difficult question. Both rebel, both feign loyalty to the party (Julia aggressively so), Winston wants to overthrow Ingsoc, while Julia rightly believes overthrow a pipe dream.

Winston has hope based on memories of a time before Ingsoc. He remembers a mother's love. A much younger Julia has neither hope nor love - only petty rebellion. Perhaps Winston creates in Julia the sparks of humanity.

But Winston's own humanity is less than robust, as O'Brien demonstrates:

[Winston:]'Yes, I consider myself superior.'

O'Brien did not speak. Two other voices were speaking. After a moment Winston recognized one of them as his own. It was a sound−track of the conversation he had had with O'Brien, on the night when he had enrolled himself in the Brotherhood. He heard himself promising to lie, to steal, to forge, to murder, to encourage drug−taking and prostitution, to disseminate venereal diseases, to throw vitriol in a child's face. O'Brien made a small impatient gesture, as though to say that the demonstration was hardly worth making. Then he turned a switch and the voices stopped.