I have shared 1984 and Animal Farm with my grandchildren because they have silently been removed from schools. This type of literature is being silenced for the terrible reason of being too honest. The Memory Hole exists 😔
"He is weak in the common social way. He thinks loyalty to persons can replace loyalty to truth."
This line indicates what I've learned to call "loyalty idolatry" - it's a fine line because real TRUTH and culture's "truth" are not equal. I have "A Man for All Seasons" - now I have a really good reason to read it.
Every society with a ruling class constantly rewards selfishness, cowardice, and superficiality. The economy rewards the greediest, the 'justice system' rewards the obedient instead of the brave, and so on.
Humans evolved to live in healthy nations in traditional times - what most people call indigenous or native nations in traditional times. In this way of life, everyone is expected to confront injustice as needed so that justice is normal. I have personally experienced this in a present-day nation living this way, and found stories from dozens of others from the past 150 years.
Humans evolved to have a deep sense of integrity, bravery, and generosity towards their neighbors. But when one group conquered another, sometime long in the past, this unhealthy-nation-way-of-life took hold, where ruling classes maintain their power by sowing division, ignorance, corruption, greed, discrimination, and so much more. This is very consistent in my research. Whether the unhealthy nation (with a ruling class) is capitalist or communist, democratic or theocratic or monarchical, these are all just different flavors of tyranny.
In unfree societies, you cannot choose the law - others choose the law you live by, and you're heavily punished for disobeying that law. But you cannot enforce the law - that's the police's job, but they have to follow orders, ultimately from the ruling class. Because we cannot choose the law nor enforce it, we are forbidden from confronting injustice, and thus injustice is widespread. It is thus illegal to live by the golden rule, as I cannot protect others from injustice as I would want them to protect me.
In healthy nations (free societies) in traditional times (that is, indigenous or native people in traditional times), *everyone* is expected to confront injustice as needed. They actually live y the golden rule. Integrity, bravery, generosity, and other positive qualities are widespread as each person is trained to have the strength to stand for what's right no matter what - not to obey corrupt laws passed by corrupt politicians and pretend they're free. Sharing is expected within the nation. This is consistent in my research, and I believe this is what free societies are like.
I have lived with such a healthy nation briefly, and I have studied dozens more, and these are universal patterns when I can find stories from traditional times. I produced a free book and free video series about what this way of life is like called The Deepest Revolution, available at www.thedeepestrevolution.com.
We are not free people, and we are trained not to know what freedom is like. Occasionally revolutions occur, but usually they are shallow revolutions where one ruling class swaps out for another, and little really changes. In a deep revolution, a nation forms without a ruling class, where they have strong laws that serve everyone, which everyone takes responsibility to uphold. Where people take responsibility to take care of each other and take care of the Earth. I have found examples of people who have done this, and I give many stories from them in my book and videos.
Every unfree society shows terrible symptoms - corruption, greed, a few rich and a lot of poor, widespread ignorance and cowardice, discrimination, and pollution. But this isn't "human nature"; we are stuck in a trap; a way of life that brings out the worst in us, with a corrupt ruling class that does their best to corrupt everyone else. In a deep way, all unhealthy nations show similar terrible symptoms, though of course the specifics vary. I don't see these troubles in healthy nations in traditional times - that is, I don't see these troubles in free societies.
If we're ever going to create a free society, we have to learn what free societies are like, and accept that we're not free now. If anyone wishes to learn more, my contact info is at that website. And again, the book and videos are free.
This is a really thoughtful comparison, especially the distinction you draw between external pressure in A Man for All Seasons and psychological occupation in 1984. That part really landed for me.
I do wonder though if the conclusion smooths over a difference the essay itself points to. With More, integrity feels like something he can actively preserve because he knows what’s true and refuses to betray it. But with Winston, the regime isn’t just pressuring him to lie, it’s trying to dismantle the very conditions that make truth and inner coherence possible in the first place. So I’m not sure it’s quite the same kind of “failure” when Winston breaks. It feels less like losing integrity under pressure and more like being systematically stripped of the ability to hold onto it at all. So Orwell’s question is a step beyond Bolt’s as to whether goodness itself can survive in a world designed to dissolve the self.
Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment portrays an act of conscience when man becomes morally corrupt. He commits a murder, followed by another one, and haunted by the thought of arrest. His conscience becomes the moral compass. Dostoevsky's novel portrays the existence of morality as a pillar that will guide an individual if/when he commits an act of moral or materialistic corruption.
More is the stronger case than Winston Smith, I think. He knows exactly what he's choosing and chooses it anyway. That's what makes the ending so hard to watch. Good pairing here.
Check out the landmark book "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt.
Thank you for the recommendation.
I have shared 1984 and Animal Farm with my grandchildren because they have silently been removed from schools. This type of literature is being silenced for the terrible reason of being too honest. The Memory Hole exists 😔
Agreed. It is up to us now to make sure they continue to be read and understood because the schools will not allow them.
"He is weak in the common social way. He thinks loyalty to persons can replace loyalty to truth."
This line indicates what I've learned to call "loyalty idolatry" - it's a fine line because real TRUTH and culture's "truth" are not equal. I have "A Man for All Seasons" - now I have a really good reason to read it.
I believe reading both allows you to see a very clear difference between those who remain true to their faith and those who succumb to immorality.
Define survive? I say this as I don't it is possible in the US (and the world) as it is...
How many today live, who have never had the opportunity to be whole?
No, ask Dostoyevsky.
"In a good society, it is shameful to be poor. In an evil society, it is shameful to be rich." - Confucius
Every society with a ruling class constantly rewards selfishness, cowardice, and superficiality. The economy rewards the greediest, the 'justice system' rewards the obedient instead of the brave, and so on.
Humans evolved to live in healthy nations in traditional times - what most people call indigenous or native nations in traditional times. In this way of life, everyone is expected to confront injustice as needed so that justice is normal. I have personally experienced this in a present-day nation living this way, and found stories from dozens of others from the past 150 years.
Humans evolved to have a deep sense of integrity, bravery, and generosity towards their neighbors. But when one group conquered another, sometime long in the past, this unhealthy-nation-way-of-life took hold, where ruling classes maintain their power by sowing division, ignorance, corruption, greed, discrimination, and so much more. This is very consistent in my research. Whether the unhealthy nation (with a ruling class) is capitalist or communist, democratic or theocratic or monarchical, these are all just different flavors of tyranny.
In unfree societies, you cannot choose the law - others choose the law you live by, and you're heavily punished for disobeying that law. But you cannot enforce the law - that's the police's job, but they have to follow orders, ultimately from the ruling class. Because we cannot choose the law nor enforce it, we are forbidden from confronting injustice, and thus injustice is widespread. It is thus illegal to live by the golden rule, as I cannot protect others from injustice as I would want them to protect me.
In healthy nations (free societies) in traditional times (that is, indigenous or native people in traditional times), *everyone* is expected to confront injustice as needed. They actually live y the golden rule. Integrity, bravery, generosity, and other positive qualities are widespread as each person is trained to have the strength to stand for what's right no matter what - not to obey corrupt laws passed by corrupt politicians and pretend they're free. Sharing is expected within the nation. This is consistent in my research, and I believe this is what free societies are like.
I have lived with such a healthy nation briefly, and I have studied dozens more, and these are universal patterns when I can find stories from traditional times. I produced a free book and free video series about what this way of life is like called The Deepest Revolution, available at www.thedeepestrevolution.com.
We are not free people, and we are trained not to know what freedom is like. Occasionally revolutions occur, but usually they are shallow revolutions where one ruling class swaps out for another, and little really changes. In a deep revolution, a nation forms without a ruling class, where they have strong laws that serve everyone, which everyone takes responsibility to uphold. Where people take responsibility to take care of each other and take care of the Earth. I have found examples of people who have done this, and I give many stories from them in my book and videos.
Every unfree society shows terrible symptoms - corruption, greed, a few rich and a lot of poor, widespread ignorance and cowardice, discrimination, and pollution. But this isn't "human nature"; we are stuck in a trap; a way of life that brings out the worst in us, with a corrupt ruling class that does their best to corrupt everyone else. In a deep way, all unhealthy nations show similar terrible symptoms, though of course the specifics vary. I don't see these troubles in healthy nations in traditional times - that is, I don't see these troubles in free societies.
If we're ever going to create a free society, we have to learn what free societies are like, and accept that we're not free now. If anyone wishes to learn more, my contact info is at that website. And again, the book and videos are free.
This is a really thoughtful comparison, especially the distinction you draw between external pressure in A Man for All Seasons and psychological occupation in 1984. That part really landed for me.
I do wonder though if the conclusion smooths over a difference the essay itself points to. With More, integrity feels like something he can actively preserve because he knows what’s true and refuses to betray it. But with Winston, the regime isn’t just pressuring him to lie, it’s trying to dismantle the very conditions that make truth and inner coherence possible in the first place. So I’m not sure it’s quite the same kind of “failure” when Winston breaks. It feels less like losing integrity under pressure and more like being systematically stripped of the ability to hold onto it at all. So Orwell’s question is a step beyond Bolt’s as to whether goodness itself can survive in a world designed to dissolve the self.
Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment portrays an act of conscience when man becomes morally corrupt. He commits a murder, followed by another one, and haunted by the thought of arrest. His conscience becomes the moral compass. Dostoevsky's novel portrays the existence of morality as a pillar that will guide an individual if/when he commits an act of moral or materialistic corruption.
More is the stronger case than Winston Smith, I think. He knows exactly what he's choosing and chooses it anyway. That's what makes the ending so hard to watch. Good pairing here.