Two modern creatures, spotted in the Middle Ages

An international disarmament conference: Lateran Council II (1139) tries to ban the steel-armed crossbow

“The crossbow had such a force of penetration and was so deadly that its use came under discussion in the twelfth century at one of history’s first disarmament conferences. In 1139 the Lateran Council voted to prohibit it, but like many later civilian disarmament recommendations this was ignored by the military.”

Lateran II c. 29: We prohibit under anathema that murderous art of crossbowmen and archers, which is hateful to God, to be employed against Christians and Catholics from now on.

A nationwide antipollution act: England 1388

“It concerned not only the pollution of the air but also of the waters. It forbade throwing garbage into rivers or leaving it uncared for in the city. All garbage had to be carried away out of town.”

12 Rich. II. c. 13: For that so much Dung and Filth of the Garbage and Intrails as well of Beasts killed, as of other Corruptions, be cast and put in Ditches, Rivers and other Waters, and also within many other Places, within, about and nigh unto divers Cities, Boroughs, and Towns of the Realm, and the suburbs of them, that the air there is greatly corrupt and infect, and many Maladies and other intolerable Diseases do daily happen ... that all they which do cast and lay all such Annoyances ... shall cause them utterly to be removed, avoided, and carried away ... upon Pain to lose and forfeit to our Lord the King xx li.

And that the Mayors and Bailiffs of every such City, Borough, or Town ... shall compel the same to be done upon like Pain. ...

And moreover Proclamation shall be made ... that none ... cause to be cast or thrown from henceforth any such Annoyance, Garbage, Dung, Intrails, or any other Ordure into the Ditches, Rivers, Waters, and other Places aforesaid; and if any do, he shall be called by writ before the Chancellor, at his Suit that will complain; and if he be found guilty, he shall be punished after the Discretion of the Chancellor.

***

Quotations from Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages (1976), 64, 87.

Lateran II c. 29 from Norman Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (1990), http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN2.HTM.

12 Rich. II. c. 13 from G.C. Coulton, Social Life in Britain from the Conquest to the Reformation (1918), 330.

No fixed state of society, only temporary 'fixes'

We think today that if only we can set up the right social / economic policies (whether welfare state, or libertarian, or fascist, or whatever) we can assure ourselves of eternal prosperity—that we will be able to live like the 1950s, or 1990s, forever (ideally with continual technological progress at the same time).

In fact the realistic view is that wealth, ‘development level’, social cohesion, productivity, balance of trade, and so on are all continually changing, both within a country and in the world outside it. No permanent ‘state’ can be established—only temporary ‘fixes’. Chesterton said: “All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always paintng it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post.” (Orthodoxy)

The medievals called the goddess Fortune, who constantly turns her Wheel and causes one nation to be preeminent for a time, then to sink into decline and give another nation its turn. And unlike us the medievals thought Fortune was arbitrary—wealth, prosperity, power, did not correspond to merit or desert, but with the chances of the world. I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

One thing we do understand today is that wealth, prosperity, and power are not pure chance, but that human choices have an impact and therefore good choices can improve one’s chances—but nevertheless it is an important corrective to this view to realize that time and chance happeneth to them all. A few historical illustrations:

If one were to look at the world in the year 1300 and were asked to predict which nation would be preeminent in wealth, reach, and influence for the next three hundred years, a good guess would have been northern Italy. Northern Italy was the wealthiest place in Europe, the most cultured and best-educated with the best universities, the most rational legal system, the greatest trade connections, flourishing industry, lively social mobility and free associations, and—above all—the most advanced techniques for business and commercial organization and the most advanced technology and science in the world. Yet Italy’s preeminence did not last even one century, let alone three. A series of wars, the plague, currency crises, and a number of external forces combined to throw Italy into a downward spiral which led in a few centuries to Italy being a notably underdeveloped nation in comparison with others of its time. And by 1600 the culture of northern Italy had changed to one hostile to work and business, quite in contrast to 300 years earlier.

Similarly if one looked in the sixteenth century Spain and Portugal would appear to be the natural world leaders. Come back in a hundred years, and it’s the Low Countries—the Netherlands and Belgium.

In the nineteenth century everything indicated that Great Britain would be the preeminent world power of the twentieth century. Her wealth, technology, and science—greatest in all the world—her navy, her vast empire; how could anything dislodge this? Yet Great Britain was not the greatest power of the twentieth century, it was the United States of America. And although there were trends that could be glimpsed which foreshadowed this, Great Britain’s eclipse by the United States was brought on above all by the First World War: an external event with its own chance causes.

No state of society, no matter how seemingly well-fixed, can persist in a static way. There will be change from within and also change outside which will alter its conditions. Therefore, since we cannot be responsible for achieving the impossible, it cannot be our responsibility to achieve ‘a just society’, ‘a prosperous society’, or whatever ideal you like—not in the sense of building a certain structure that achieves this. Our responsibility as social beings must rather be to do the right thing here and now—what does justice require now? what must we do to be prosperous now?—and the measure of ‘a just society’ would not be permanent structures but rather dispositions and habits.

This does not mean without taking thought for the long term, but without imagining that we can assume what conditions the long term will impose upon us. In this way social responsibility becomes a macrocosm of individual responsibility—no reasonable individual attempts to, or imagines that he can, establish a fixed and permanent ideal situation for his own life; at the very least he knows that he must age at the rate of sixty seconds per minute and one day indeed must die. Therefore individual responsibility does not entail making assurance for the future, but doing the right thing in the present. Likewise for social responsibility. 

The lay vocation in the middle ages and now

The medievals broke down their society into three classes: laborantes, pugnantes, et orantes — those who work, those who fight, and those who pray.

The laborantes, ‘those who work’, encompass chiefly farmers, labourers, and artisans. Merchants, traders, and bankers presumably have to fit in here, although I suspect that this scheme did not seriously take them into account.

Pugnantes, ‘those who fight’, are the political class, the aristocrats: kings, dukes, lords, knights, squires. It is worth noting here one of the great changes that has transformed politics in the modern period. In the middle ages, the rulers of nations were primarily military men. The title rex itself, which came to mean ‘king’, at the end of the Roman period referred to the chief of a unit of troops drawn from the Germanic nations bordering the Empire. So the Rex Francorum was the Leader of the Frankish Battalion in the Roman military system. In the disintegration of the Empire the reges assumed leadership of the military defence of the Roman provinces, and so came eventually to be the rulers of these territories. The point is that the medieval political class, and the position of greatest worldly prestige, is primarily military; whereas in our society the political class and positions of greatest prestige are primarily intellectual, bureaucratic, or economic. In our day the military is a position of relatively low prestige.

The class I want to focus on is the orantes, ‘those who pray’. This is the clerical class: the priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope, as well as the many monks, nuns, and friars. However, this class covers much more ground than is suggested by defining them as those who pray. Certainly the medievals may have considered prayer their most valuable and important social function. But in fact the ‘clerks’ (from clericus, ‘clergyman’) were responsible for practically all intellectual work. Clerks were the administrators, the teachers, the philosophers, the scientists, the writers, the theologians, the scholars, the lawyers... This began to change toward the end of the medieval period, especially in very wealthy, socially mobile places like Italy—from the fourteenth century many lawyers were laymen, and many of the great Renaissance scholars and writers were laymen. But overwhelmingly, in the middle ages it was clerks who did the brain work.

It is interesting to consider, with this in mind, the nature of the lay vocation. Clearly, in the middle ages, the lay vocation primarily meant being a man of action. It centred in the use of physical strength and the manipulation of the natural world—either through work, or through violence. In intellectual matters the job of the layman was to be obedient to the clerks, who could read and who were educated in the various fields of knowledge. The vocation of the clergy was to guide and rule the rest of society, not only in religion, but in all intellectual matters.

This is no longer the case. In fact, the laity are now required by the circumstances of our time to take up a vocation of intellectual leadership in most fields. The vast majority of administrators, teachers, philosophers, scientists, writers, scholars, lawyers, even perhaps theologians, are lay. You may not often hear me say that the Church should adapt to the modern world—but here is a case where I will say it. Brain work is now primarily the vocation of the laity, and it is they who must lead the clerks in most fields.

Although this may seem obvious, and maybe like it does not need to be stated, I think this is actually a difficult and painful transition for the Church to make. Consider the diminution it demands of the clerical vocation. Priests and bishops can no longer consider themselves authorities in intellectual matters as such. Yet they still are obliged, by their succession to the Apostolic authority, to be rulers in religion. How does this play out in practice? It is actually difficult to see how it would work! at least without frequent conflict and toes being stepped on. Particularly in the Catholic Church, whose teachings and traditions are so entwined not only with theology but with philosophy, history, and law as well (one might add literature, science, economics, and on and on).

Hence it appears to be a constant temptation to clerics, in the modern period, to continue their medieval role as teachers in manifold intellectual fields. One sees this in economics: the pope, or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or a group of nuns, issue pronouncements on economic matters and expect to be held as authorities. Actually, this is not your job anymore! You clerks must look to lay economists and be their pupils. But that is hard to do, even for men of good will; it requires humility, and also a good grasp of the boundaries of one’s jurisdiction and competence—which is not always easy to know!

The Church has a long memory. Bishops and other clerks pronouncing upon intellectual matters outside their competence—perhaps this is the memory of the middle ages, still alive though the world has changed.

This consideration of the medieval period also shows that the nature of the lay vocation is not immutable. It is not a given. Nor is the clerical vocation. They depend on the circumstances of the time and the society in which the Church lives. So although it is true to say that matters like economics fall to the lay vocation, it is a historically contingent truth, and not one arrived at through the necessary nature of the laity itself. This might change. It is conceivable that, one day, clerks could be the ones who do most of the physical labour, and then the lay vocation would be primarily intellectual.

And it makes you wonder: if all these are historically contingent, then what is the real essence of the lay vocation? 

If books should be free, how to pay their production costs? Kickstarter before the internet

In Dr. Johnson's time (1709-1784) authors would commonly raise funds to write books by collecting subscriptions beforehand. They would put out advertisements and recruit friends and colleagues to spread word of mouth and to solicit subscriptions. In essence, this was Kickstarter for the 18th century.

In this time there was no copyright law in England. There was, however, a gentleman's agreement among book publishers which enforced a sort of copyright. The custom held that one publisher owned the rights to publish a certain work and that any other publisher who printed it was in violation. Thus there was an infamous publisher who would print cheap editions of works 'under copyright' - he was something of an outcast among the other publishers. In fact, Boswell reports in his biography of Johnson that another publisher was attempted to enforce his customary copyright in court. I do not know the outcome, but it is possible that this gentleman's agreement was the source of our modern copyright law.

In any case an author generally did not rely on copyright protection to make his living. And that is a worthwhile thing  to know now, when the digital world has made the formerly scarce good of books into a non-scarce good. In a non-scarce good there can be no theft. But its production still has to be paid for. How, then, the well-meaning and morally consistent man will ask, can we enjoy the fruits of on the internet and the endless duplication and sharing of goods (like music, books, movies, and software) which it makes possible, and yet ensure that these goods can stills be produced?

Look back to an age before copyright. How were books paid for then? One way was through the Kickstarter method. Kickstarter and in general the technique of taking subscriptions is a way for would-be authors to acquire the funding to write books, even in a copyright-free world.

How great would it be if subscription were introduced into academic publishing? The status quo now is for scholars to be allotted grant money, generally by governments. In other words, money is taken from citizens and given to scholars. How much more moral academia would be if the funding for scholarship came not from coerced but from voluntary payments?

Impossible, you say? Well, probably impossible if your goal is to maintain the current rate and volume of academic publishing. But a reduction in the present cataract-scale output of taxpayer-funded scholarship, especially in the humanities, would probably be a very good thing. Put simply, at present, it is probable that the supply of this good exceeds demand to a ludicrous degree. In fact demand is hardly a factor at all. Were supply allowed to rely, even a little bit more, on demand, a great deal of ploughing the sand and sowing the ocean might be ended.

Joseph Morris – Alinsky for Dummies

http://youtu.be/lRQ8NaZZAiE

This is a really wonderful lecture and a wide-ranging. Although Saul Alinksy’s work and life is the organizing principle of the talk, he has fascinating things to say on a variety of other subjects. At the beginning the talk seems rather dry and concerned only with biography and with local Chicago politics, but Morris builds up steam as he goes and becomes really moving when he speaks about John Adams as hero of the American Revolution, and about the unique experiment that is the United States of America. His conception of the USA is one that is perhaps well-known, but I had never heard it stated so brilliantly before; it has made me more secure in my conviction that the United States was granted by Providence a great role to play in the salvation of humanity from the disasters of modern history.

That Providential role has been sabotaged and undermined by many, not least of whom is Saul Alinsky, who declared his allegiance for all to see on the opening page of his book Rules for Radicals:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.

Just to be clear, the kingdom which Lucifer won is hell. Hell: where he lives in perpetual misery with the other fallen angels, and can do no good for anyone, including himself; but instead seeks to ruin and immiserate other created beings—in the same way a man who has lost a fight will go home and kick the dog. Hell: where the subjects in his kingdom are the men, women, and children whom he has damned, whose destiny he has stolen and whose birthright taken, whom he has conned into trading an eternity of blessedness for dust, ashes, fire, and chains.

Many of us have discerned the fingerprints of Satan all over the history of the twentieth and, now, the twenty-first century, especially in the political realm. But perhaps this detective work is a bit superfluous. That both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are disciples of Alinsky, himself a disciple of Satan, makes clear to what precise destination the conductors are directing the United States train. And with the United States goes, perhaps, the realistic hope of preventing the drainage of Western civilization into the sewer of hell.

Lest this leave the reader with a depressing conception of Joseph Morris’s talk, there is a wonderful few minutes during the questions when he talks about what hope we have, and what is to be done by believers. Nothing unites allies like a common enemy—and it is clearer now than ever before that believers in the natural law and the rule of God are natural allies against the angel who would drag all men down with him into nonentity. Starting at 1:00:54, Morris talks about how Jews (and he himself is a believing Jew), Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants can understand one another. It is such a lovely few paragraphs that it is worth quoting in full.

A few of us in the room had the privilege of having dinner together last night, and in the course of our conversation I made the observation: you ever notice how sometimes, for believing Jews and believing Christians—including Evangelical Protestants and Catholics, for example—we feel more comfortable with each other than we do with people nominally in our own faith traditions who really aren’t believers? and who don’t share our ethical and moral concerns?

There’s a point there. I think we have reached a time in history when it ought to dawn on us that although clearly, we have important differences—important things to debate and discuss and learn from each other, and fight about! in a civil sort of way—at the end of the day people who share a fundamental belief in God, and the idea that there is a loving God to whom we are accountable and who is the source of both nature and natural law, and morality and moral law—and Jews and Christians agree on that!—and if we then agree that we can reach back to something as familiar to us as the Judaeo-Christian tradition (we don’t need lofty and airy and hard-to-fathom modern scholarship) to understand the basic rules that make for a decent and humane society, like the Ten Commandments—which we share!—if we’ve got agreement on that then we’re a long way along the road to building and sustaining the society that we all agree we want.

And the remarkable recognition comes that there really are people in our midst, our brothers, our neighbours, our colleagues, and so on, who no longer share those fundamental points of agreement with us. They no longer are comfortable with the Judaeo-Christian tradition. They are in a post-Judaeo-Christian world where God talk is alien and where it’s almost silly—it’s almost demeaning!—to be talking about these ethical imperatives when the morality that is encountered on a day-to-day basis is so situational, and so not rooted in these fundamentals, that there is a disconnect. There is a divide—and it is increasingly difficult to communicate across that.

I would, with hesitation, and open to correction, propose that we may even share this common language with the Muslims. Certainly when Muslims abominate Western civilization for its luxury, obscenity, irreverence, and, above all, praise of sexual sin, we ought to be in agreement with them. Perhaps the key division is that we want to save Western civilization while they want to destroy it. But I have no personal knowledge of what Muslims think about these things, and so I leave it as a question for others to answer.

In sum, a brilliant lecture by a brilliant man. Well worth listening to and absorbing. 

Total Recall — was it all in his head?

I refer, of course, to the 1990 film Total Recall, directed by Paul Verhoeven and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Spoilers follow.)

Arnold Schwarzenegger plays Douglas Quaid, a regular joe construction worker, in the near future when humans have founded a colony on the planet Mars. Quaid has been having recurring dreams about Mars. And in these dreams there is a beautiful brunette, much to the annoyance of Quaid’s wife of eight years, Lori, played by Sharon Stone. Quaid tries to persuade Lori to take a trip to Mars, but Lori persistently resists or changes the subject.

Quaid hears about a company called Recall where you can have memories implanted, including a trip to Mars. They put you under for awhile, insert the memory of your perfect vacation, and when you wake up it’s like you’ve really been there. There’s just one problem: one of Quaid’s coworkers says his friend went to Recall and was lobotomized. Quaid goes to Recall anyway.

Quaid orders the Mars vacation, but the sales director offers Quaid an upgrade: the Secret Agent package. You get to be a spy going undercover on Mars, discovering an ancient alien civilization, and in the end you beat the bad guy, get the girl, and save the planet. Quaid takes it.

And here is where the question comes in. Everything that happens after they strap Quaid into a chair and put him under at Recall — is it real? or is it all part of his Mars Secret Agent memory package?

Immediately after they start the operation, Quaid flips out and starts yelling at the doctors “YOU BLEW MY COVER!” The sales director thinks he is acting out the Mars Secret Agent package, but the head doctor explains that they have not implanted it yet, and Quaid must really be a secret agent — which means someone in the government erased his memory. They realize that they’ve stumbled upon big trouble, so they wipe Quaid’s memory of his visit to Recall and chuck him in a cab in the street. But soon after Quaid awakes, his coworkers at the construction site attack him because he popped his memory cap; and then his wife Lori tries to kill him, who reveals that she is an agent placed with Quaid to watch him and make sure he doesn’t remember anything. She says that they were set up on Earth six weeks ago, and the whole eight years of their marriage was an invented memory implanted in his brain. After Lori fails to kill Quaid, another group of agents led by Richter (Michael Ironside) pursue him. Quaid gets contacted by a rogue agent who delivers a package full of gadgets that help him escape Richter. The package contains a video recording made by Quaid before his memory was erased — when his name was Hauser and he was a secret agent working for the governor of Mars, Cohaagen. The recording tells Quaid “Get your ass to Mars!”

From this point on the intricacies of the plot, which is pleasantly complicated, need not be recounted. On Mars, Quaid meets the brunette who was in his dreams, Mileena, whom he apparently knew before as Hauser. Together they defeat Cohaagen who has been using his monopolous control of oxygen to exploit the Martian colony. They discover an ancient alien machine buried under the surface of Mars, and activate it. It turns out to be an immense reactor that melts the underground glaciers and produces enough air for the whole planet.

But wait. Isn’t this exactly what Quaid was promised by the sales agent at Recall?

Well, the movie reminds us of this at the end. Quaid stands on the top of a ridge, looking down on the free colonists venturing out onto the Martian surface. He turns to Mileena and asks her if this is all a dream. She replies, “Kiss me quick before you wake up.”

It could be that everything that happened was real, and Quaid actually was a secret agent. But it could also be that Quaid is still at Recall, living out the scenario that they are implanting in his head. Actually, there are several hints given through the movie that Quaid has had a psychotic episode during the implantation process and that Quaid is stuck in the dream-world, which has got out of control and taken over his brain. According to this version of the movie, Quaid’s freak-out at Recall, his waking up in a cab and being attacked by co-workers, his wife revealing that she is not really his wife — all this is part of the dream-world he requested from Recall, only run amuk.

So which is it? Is it real, or is Quaid stuck in his dream world?

Well, it must first be said that the movie will not allow a perfectly consistent solution either way. There are certain events that only make sense if everything is real, and certain other events that only make sense if it is all a dream. But I say that everything is real — Quaid really is a secret agent. The most conclusive evidence points to the whole movie, from beginning to end, taking place in reality and not in Quaid’s dream.

But first, the points against. What is the evidence that Quaid is stuck in the dream-world he requested at Recall? This really amounts to two points.

I. When the doctors are setting up Quaid’s dream-scenario, they ask him questions to help him design the woman he is going to meet. He says he wants an athletic brunette, sleazy but demure. As his eyes are going blank he sees the computer monitor displaying the woman they’ve set up for the program: it is Mileena, whom he meets shortly on Mars. This very clearly points to the rest of the movie being a dream, and is hard to explain otherwise.

II. The plot of the movie perfectly fulfills everything Quaid requested in his interview at Recall. He turns out to be a spy, he goes under cover to Mars, he discovers the relics of an alien civilization, he kills his enemies, he gets the girl of his dreams, and he saves the planet. And Quaid’s question at the end of the movie is plainly meant to remind us that Quaid has gotten precisely what he asked for, and to leave us wondering if he is still at Recall.

In support of the events being real, there are the following points.

I. Quaid’s freak-out at Recall. This scene can have no place in Quaid’s dream-world, either as part of the memory implant or as part of an operation gone-wrong that leaves him trapped in the fantasy, and for a simple reason — they wipe his memory and Quaid knows nothing about it for the rest of the movie. But maybe this is getting a bit too clever; we can leave this one on the side.

II. The doctor from Recall’s appearance later in the movie. There is a scene on Mars where a man in a lab coat shows up and tells Quaid that he is still at Recall and his having a psychotic episode. He claims that he has been inserted into Quaid’s dream-world in order to talk him down. Quaid, he says, has become invested in the fantasy and they cannot get him out of it unless he chooses to reject the dream-world. The doctor offers him a pill which is “a symbol of his desire to return to reality.” If Quaid takes the pill, he will wake up. Quaid considers this, and then aks the doctor, “if you’re not really here, then what happens if I shoot you right now?” The doctor says that it would mean Quaid has destroyed any chance to return to reality — his mind would be finally broken and the dream-world would go mad, taking Quaid withi t. Quaid is almost convinced, but as he places the pill in his mouth he sees a bead of sweat drip down the doctor’s face. He shoots him, and then a gang of Richter’s men burst into the room, having apparently been waiting while the doctor tried to trick Quaid.

Certainly this scene could possibly stand on the other list, as evidence that Quaid is still at Recall. But there is good reason to take it as confirmation that Quaid is, in fact, awake. First, Quaid kills the doctor and none of the threats he made actually happen. Quaid does not go mad nor does the world start going crazy around him. And the threats seem somewhat improbable when he makes them. But more important is that bead of sweat. Why would he be sweating in fear if he was an image inserted into Quaid’s dream? More likely Quaid got it right, and the doctor was sent by Cohaagen and Richter to try to trap Quaid.

III. Quaid’s dreams. Quaid dreamed about Mileena before he ever went to Recall. This makes sense if Quaid is really a secret agent from Mars, who knew Mileena before his memory was erased. It also explains very well his obsession with Mars. Admittedly another possibility is that Mileena has the appearance that she does because the doctors at Recall made her look like the woman of his dreams, so this could go either way.

IV. Quaid and Lori’s marriage. Now I play my trump card. The strongest evidence in favour of the whole movie being real and Quaid really being a secret agent is the way we see Quaid and Lori’s marriage play out in the first few minutes of the film. To put it simply, their marriage looks like a fraud, and Lori acts highly suspicious. In the first scene when Quaid tells her he dreamed about Mars again and she asks about the brunette, she flips straight from annoyed jealousy to sleazy sexual advances. The entire conversation at the breakfast table she appears to be trying to change the subject and distract Quaid from thinking about Mars. It makes perfect sense that she is a secret agent who was assigned to Quaid six weeks ago to keep him from returning to Mars.

If I’m right, and the whole movie does take place in reality, what then is the point of having Recall in the film at all? First of all it's just a cool idea. Actually it’s genious. What Recall does is plant doubt in our minds, which then is allowed to keep us guessing at every point in the movie, and moreso because they play with it and keep reminding us of it. And it gives them a little twist to throw at you in the end, to leave you scratching your head when it’s over. It gets you to go over the movie again in your head and try to put the pieces together. And that does something very important — in a word, it makes the film memorable. Have you ever had a dream that seemed incredibly interesting or important, and you said to yourself that you would think about it again later that day — but when the time came to think about it, you couldn’t remember a thing? But some dreams you can remember for the rest of your life, and never forget. Why? Because you thought about those ones when they were still fresh in your mind. Very likely you told someone about them soon after you woke up. The act of going over them makes them stick in your mind. Well, the plot about Recall and the question whether the whole film is in Arnold’s head does the same thing for this movie. That’s why it’s there.

Quaid really is a secret agent. And that makes the ending of Total Recall all the more satisfying. He really did get exactly what he asked for. 

Dr. Johnson’s account of a paralytic stroke, 17 June 1783

            Boswell writes in his Life of Samuel Johnson, ch. 53 (1783):

            He embraced me, and gave me his blessing, as usual when I was leaving him for any length of time. I walked from his door to-day, with a fearful apprehension of what might happen before I returned.

            My anxious apprehensions at parting with him this year proved to be but too well founded; for not long afterwards he had a dreadful stroke of the palsy, of which there are very full and accurate accounts in letters written by himself to show with what composure of mind, and resignation to the Divine Will, his steady piety enabled him to behave.

“TO MR. EDMUND ALLEN.

“DEAR SIR,—

“It has pleased God, this morning, to deprive me of the powers of speech; and as I do not know but that it may be his farther good pleasure to deprive me soon of my senses, I request you will, on the receipt of this note, come to me, and act for me, as the exigencies of my case may require.

                                                                              “I am, sincerely yours,

                                                                                                      “SAM. JOHNSON.

“June 17, 1783.”

“TO THE REVEREND DR. JOHN TAYLOR.

“DEAR SIR,—

“It has pleased God, by a paralytic stroke in the night, to deprive me of speech.

“I am very desirous of Dr. Heberden’s assistance, as I think my case is not past remedy. Let me see you as soon as it is possible. Bring Dr. Heberden with you, if you can; but come yourself at all events. I am glad you are so well, when I am so dreadfully attacked.

“I think that by a speedy application of stimulants much may be done. I question if a vomit, vigorous and rough, would not rouse the organs of speech to action. As it is too early to send, I will try to recollect what I can, that can be suspected to have brought on this dreadful distress.

“I have been accustomed to bleed frequently for an asthmatic complaint; but have forborne for some time by Dr. Pepys’s persuasion, who perceived my legs beginning to swell. I sometimes alleviate a painful, or more properly an oppressive constriction of my chest, by opiates; and have lately taken opium frequently, but the last, or two last times, in smaller quantities. My largest dose is three grains, and last night I took but two. You will suggest these things (and they are all that I can call to mind) to Dr. Heberden.

                                                                              “I am, etc.,

                                                                                                      “SAM. JOHNSON.

“June 17, 1783.”

Two days after he wrote thus to Mrs. Thrale:

“On Monday, the 16^th, I sat for my picture, and walked a considerable way with little inconvenience. In the afternoon and evening I felt myself light and easy, and began to plan schemes of life. Thus I went to bed, and in a short time waked and sat up, as has been long my custom, when I felt a confusion and indistinctness in my head, which lasted, I suppose, about half a minute. I was alarmed, and prayed God that however he might afflict my body, he would spare my understanding. This prayer, that I might try the integrity of my faculties, I made in Latin verse. The lines were not very good, but I knew them not to be very good: I made them easily, and concluded myself to be unimpaired in my faculties.

“Soon after I perceived that I had suffered a paralytic stroke, and that my speech was taken from me. I had no pain, and so little dejection in this dreadful state, that I wondered at my own apathy, and considered that perhaps death itself, when it should come, would excite less horror than seems now to attend it.

“In order to rouse the vocal organs, I took two drams. Wine has been celebrated for the production of eloquence. I put myself into violent motion, and I think repeated it; but all was vain. I then went to bed, and strange as it may seem, I think slept. When I saw light, it was time to contrive what I should do. Though God stopped my speech, He left me my hand... My first note was necessarily to my servant, who came in talking, and could not immediately comprehend why he should read what I put into his hands.

“I then wrote a card to Mr. Allen, that I might have a discreet friend at hand, to act as occasion should require. In penning this note, I had some difficulty; my hand, I knew not how or why, made wrong letters. I then wrote to Dr. Taylor to come to me, and bring Dr. Heberden: and I sent to Dr. Brocklesby, who is my neighbour. My physicians are very friendly, and give me great hopes; but you may imagine my situation. I have so far recovered my vocal powers, as to repeat the Lord’s Prayer with no very imperfect articulation. My memory, I hope, yet remains as it was; but such an attack produces solicitude for the safety of every faculty.”

“TO JAMES BOSWELL, ESQ.

“DEAR SIR,—

“Your anxiety about my health is very friendly, and very agreeable with your general kindness. I have, indeed, had a frightful blow. On the 17^th of last month, about three in the morning, as near as I can guess, I perceived myself almost totally deprived of speech. I had no pain. My organs were so obstructed that I could say no, but could scarcely say yes. I wrote the necessary directions, for it pleased God to spare my head, and sent for Dr. Heberden and Dr. Brocklesby... They came and gave the directions which the disease required, and from that time I have been continually improving in articulation. I can now speak, but the nerves are weak, and I cannot continue discourse long; but strength, I hope, will return. The physicians consider me as cured. I was last Sunday at church...

“London, July 3, 1783.”

Such was the general vigour of his constitution, that he recovered from this alarming and severe attack with wonderful quickness.