From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Torture and the mind: _Star Trek_ vs. _1984_. 
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:35:47 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1993Jan3.015948.18450@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
 
Re: genetic personality differences and Orwell.
 
> 	You might be right, but maybe not.  There will always be
> 	drop-out's in society.  Whether this is a great stand for
> 	individualism is nt really clear, though.

Well, that isn't exactly what I meant. This is a somewhat minor point,
but I think it is fair to say that personalities are at least partly
a result of genetically dictated hormone levels, neuronal
configurations, etc.  I am skeptical that Orwell was 100% on the
environment side of the "nature vs. nurture" controversy. 
 
>       Me, I think Orwell
> 	intended to show that Winston was simply improperly 
> 	trained, or that social training was not *quite* enough to 
> 	make people endure constant hell. 

I agree that Orwell is very strong on the principle that environment
is an extremely powerful factor in shaping personality. It seems
arguable, though, that genetic factors are at work also. The Thought
Police will _always_ be needed, because genetic variation will likely
_always_ produce a few people who will be malcontents.
 
>       After all, some of the 
> 	pro-big-brotherites also were in prison.  And Winston felt
> 	that his friend, the guy working on Newspeak, would end up 
> 	in prison for being too sharp.  That is, Big Brother wanted
> 	conformation to an extreme that was just a little bit more
> 	than humanity could provide.  If this says anything about
> 	individualism, it's pretty minor.

Maybe a misunderstanding -- Orwell is really debunking a kind of
Romantic individualism in this book, I agree. My only point was that
some people are probably congenitally less likely to be good citizens
of Oceania. For example, Syme, the friend of SMith you mention. He
is a bit too sharp -- a genetic trait. Stupid people have an easier time.
One example of a genetic factor that would alter one's susceptibilty to
the Ingsoc ideology. I agree, though, this is no argument for 
any kind of individualism. 
 
>>> 	In the end of theepisode, Picard confesses that he saw five.
>>> 	(I think--I wasn't really paying attention--I got tired of the
>>> 	1984-watered-down rip off of a "plot".. Pain aint all there is 
>>> 	to it..) 
>>
>>Actually, he never confesses to the Kardassians that he saw five, even though
>>he did. He remains defiant _even though_ the Kardassians have distorted
>>his perceptions in a way similar to the way O'Brien renders Winston
>>Smith unable to tell whether or not he was holding up 4 or 5 fingers.
> 
> 	Picard confesses to Troi at the end of the episode after
> 	being returned to the enterprise.

The fact that he never confessed to the Kardassians is what is signif-
icant from the _1984_ perspective.  My point was that STTNG affirms
a kind of Romanticism by having Picard remain defiant towards the
Kardassians _even though_ they have messed with his mind to the point
that he sees five lights.  Orwell's book is partly a refutation
of the perspective endorsed by STTNG.   


>>Do you know much about this? I've read about the effects of the 
>>sensory-deprivation chamber, and a little about modern interrogation
>>drugs, but I'd be fascinated to hear what you know.
> 
> 
> 	I do not know much about drugs or the sensory depriv chamber, 
> 	other than a very brief chance I got to try one.  It took maybe
> 	an hour of real hard-core boredom before I started to feel
> 	kind of funny.  About then, I got scared and wanted out 
> 	very, very much.  Imagine if you simply awoke from unconciousness,
> 	with no knowledge of how much time had passed, in this 
> 	scentless, feelingless (not quite), soundless (not quite) hell.

Wow...where did you get to try this? Was it really as bad as that?
I've heard that it is only a matter of time before insanity sets in
in one of those things. Is that true?

> 	I've read a few accounts of people who thought that they had died 
> 	while in the chamber, because they were not ready for what it 
> 	offered.  With easy terror like that

Is it quite terrifying?

> 	And then there's surgery.  Suppose you hooked up a wire to someone's
> 	pleasure center.  You could program them that way.

Seems to me I read a sci-fi novel once in which that occurred. 
_Ringworld_, I think. I wonder if that's ever been tried in real life.
 
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca