u t
1]
Pa ag 1:
The I ls
f his
f the C ve
n,
hich refr cts n
pec li r n t re;
b
ks,
he rs
n
f r kn
the
n i e ;
v ri ble n
re the i
r t
f ll
f
f the in ivi
isc l rs the light
f th se
s me
n
h
n lesser
think the
the implic ti ns f r b th the in ivi
Wh t steps c n
f n t re,
g verne
ith
mires;
ther simil r f ct r. S
ist rb nce, n
le ge in their
h m he
s it
ing either t
thers; r t
r t
his m
th t the spirit
ere b
ch nce.
rl s, n n t in the gre ter
n erst n the phr se “men l
rl s”
l m n. F r ever ne h s
his e c ti n n c nvers ti n
th rit
r t
ls
k f r kn
th r reg r s this
his
the re ing
n
f
hen he first
f m n is in f ct
ence men l k
r c mm n
le ge in their
s
c ve
rl .
n lesser
pr blem? C nsi er
l n s ciet .
ne t ke t free neself fr m the I ls f the C ve?
17
u t
2]
Pa ag 2:
The P rt
s i
Smith, kne
e rs
th t Oce ni
th t Oce ni
g . B t
hich in n
the P rt
here
h
i
c se m st s
imp se
if
h
never been in
been in
th t kn
lli nce
ith E r si .
ith E r si
s sh rt
le ge exist? Onl
n be nnihil te . An
ll rec r s t l
bec me tr th. ‘Wh
lli nce
if ll
n
f t re:
h c ntr ls the present c ntr ls the p st.’
Winst n re ll
might
t
nl
the s pp se
critic r ise t
u t
The
kne
s b se
r vie
n
c nsci
f ct? Expl in
n h
l
s f r
n c nsci
sness,
hich
been in lli nce
ith
gree th t
ns er. Wh t
resp n t
int
sl g n, ‘c ntr ls the
s mem r . D
r
the lie
then the lie p sse
c ntr ls the p st,’ r n the P rt
The n rr t r cl ims th t Winst n “kne ” th t Oce ni h
time
thers ccepte
the s me t le
hist r
E r si , b t th t this
in his
e, Winst n
bjecti n
this bjecti n?
3]
th r
v i
f P ss ge 2 seems t
nl
Winst n h s
ever temp r ril , is b
rel ing
n his
(s)
es this th ght c ntr st
ith th t
th rs th t
m re gree
the P rt ’s lie, h
c nsci sness. In
Is there ne
h t
f these
be s ggesting th t the
ith? Expl in
n
f P ss ge 1?
r ns er.
18