LOST as Existential Allegory

[Sim]

Let me begin by telling you how the entire Lost series will come to an end.

In several years' time (call it three if the writers are prinicipled and resist an X-Files-esque demise) the surviving survivors will be preparing to finally leave the island for good. And in the heartbreaking final moments of what will have become by then a TV sensation more beloved than MASH, as the strings reach their aching crecendo, one survivor will choose to stay behind.

The final image will be of Locke in bunker #3, resigned to or perhaps graced by fate, to redeem (if not save) the world through his faith...an enlightentned diety bound by his commitment to his friends - and all sentient beings! - to guard them from afar by pushing a button. What this final act means will be the subject of debate for years...just as it has been for millenia.

Ok...so let's talk existentialism. :)

For those who are looking for 'the answer' in this mix of science, faith, and conspiracy, I think we can confidently conclude that you'll never get one. Or rather, you'll get many competing explanations that are ALL true...given each perspective.


Science and Conspiracy

Descartes famously framed the existential crisis when he asked, 'what if my entire existence is only the dream of a malevolant demon?' What if rather than mere chance or divine purpouse, my entire being is the work of conspiring others, Dharma demons who manipulate and control. What if, as the Matrix posits, technology has advanced beyond our ability to not only control but even understand it? What if powerful economic or political players have long ago enacted their domination over the world, making us pawns in their master plan?

Whether you're talking about Plato's allegory of the cave or the Truman Show, gnostic treatises on the illusory nature of the reality or Orwell's 1984, alien conspiracies or Huxley's Brave New World or Jackob's Ladder or Ender's Game or Kafka's Trial... the idea that our lives could be subjugated to the interests and machinations of other, uncaring beings is as old as it is prevalent today.

By the end of LOST it will be possible to conclude that the entire experience was the experiement of a crazy industrialist. For everything that happened there will be a conspiratorial reading that will include everything from insipid global conspiracies to neuro-manipulative magnetic resonance to ESP and remote viewing. But this, as always, will only be one perspective.


Social Darwinism and Basic Psycho-Physiological Response

We are all hairless monkeys, and from the political writings of Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes we know that in the absense of socially constructed norms life is nasty brutish and short. Ideas of utopia and socially engineered communities dominate Western thought, and LOST takes on these themes head on in not so veiled terms.

Will we survive our encounter with "The Other" - as the psycho social construct at the heart of identity from Marx to Lacan to Foucault - or will we become it as our repressed negative potential? Will just leaders emerge...and must they become philosopher kings who hide the truth of things from their followers in order to rule (see consipiracy above)? Will a New Testament love triumph over violence and greed? Or is it all about the law of the jungle?

All theories will be tested...all will be found virtuous and wanting at once. For the answer is not here...alone.


Destiny and Faith

The experiences of the main players will also be widely ascribed to supernatural agents like God, destiny, or karma. As Walt manifests his 'powers' and as the dreams and coincidences proliferate the religious themes underlying LOST - and all existential ruminations - will become more pronounced.

The leaps of faith required to survive - from kicking old addictive patterns to mustering the courage to lead - will always be front and center, as they should be since human life at its most meaningful always requires surrender to the powerfully primal. Myth and faith. Archetypes and univarsal narrative structures mandate a mystical unfolding of the drama...and that would be a correct reading of the truth of LOST (as it will be more and more each year)...but it would be only one.


Chance and Coincidence

On a long enough time line and given an infinity of posibilities, even a one in a trillion, trillion chance WILL happen. That's Hurley's bad luck, that's Jack knowing Desmond, that's a plane breaking up in flight and most people surviving, and that's the thousands of factors that needed to come together for the events of the show to unfold...and that's life.

Some things will never be 'explained' using simple causal explanations because, contrarty to what we want to believe, causality is never simple. A secular, 'sh*t happens' explanation of the events on LOST will always be possible. But it goes deeper...the fundamental absurdaty of things, the unintended randomness of it all is not just the stuff of Camu but also of Zen. It IS totally meaningless...and in that fact, the world derives its meaning.

__________________

So when pitting these perspectives against each other, the answer will always be YES to all. That's the deepest heart of the existential allegory that is LOST.

And as Locke remains behind as the others leave...the EVERYMAN who is both fool and savior...the show will conclude on the central question that drives it...what is it all about? Why do we exist? What is the meaning of it all? WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?

The historical success of this TV show will be measured by the degree to which it powerfully presents the perpectives that people have used to approach the existential enormity of this question while elevating all answers and rejecting all as definative.

[BOONE182]

The historical success of this TV show will be measured by the degree to which it powerfully presents the perpectives that people have used to approach the existential enormity of this question while elevating all answers and rejecting all as definative.

that line right there, is very confusing :p lol

[Sim]

The historical success of this TV show will be measured by the degree to which it powerfully presents the perpectives that people have used to approach the existential enormity of this question while elevating all answers and rejecting all as definative.

that line right there, is very confusing :p lol

:) I agree!

Translation: There's lots of ways to interpret the show. This is intentional, since the writers are writing in lots of possible explanations. I'm suggesting that the 'possibility of explanation' is what the show is about - that there's a rational, social, emotional, and transcendent way of reading the events of the show (the four levels above.) I think the show will kick ass as long as it plays to all of these readings, and will reach the level of true art if their conclusion is that ALL of these ways of looking at things is both 100% correct and utterly incomplete without the others.

(Sorry, needed to end with a restatement of the original.)

:)

[shred]

Ok...so let's talk existentialism. :)

Let's not. I'm still down here on the ground trying to figure out what Lostzilla is.

[Sim]

Let's not. I'm still down here on the ground trying to figure out what Lostzilla is.

I was wondering if you could tell me, what is your face before your parents' birth?

[guildenstern]

The mish mash of misrepresented philosophies in the first post is annoying.

[Z3R0C00L]

"what is your face before your parents' birth?"

Since you were not alive, you had no face. Its not that complex.

And points right to my argument: that not only has the show been providing regular, and totally scientific, realisitc, solutions one show to the next, but that I expect it will continue to do so.

I honestly think that you are confusing the fact that you dont know what is going to happen in the show, with your theory that nothing really will happen. Im sorry, but I think anyone trying to predict the ending at this point is taking on way too much. Since I am certain that you could not have even predicted the first episode.

And the show certainly isnt going to end in three years, you need 5 years for syndication. They are going to do 5 years unless everyone stops watching, which isnt going to happen either.

What you list above are themes in the show, but I think you focus on them too much, to the point of ignoring the real events in the show. Lots of actual things happen, not just poetic parallels to classical issues like faith, destiny, or backgammon. I love how people insist that there will be no facts, no science to explain the show. Yet as of now, we are just getting tons of clear information, without any supernatural things going on!

[8-15-23]

"Last show" is going to be like Return of the King (multiple PERFECT revealing endings)-spread out over an entire season. (Thats why the Hobbit is in the show! Tolkein acting experience! Also, hes good at hanging in a tree in a harness! God Bless Charlie!)

[Z3R0C00L]

Ugh am I the only one who is starting to hate charlie?

He was a jerk to hurley, he is going to be on drugs again, he is all gooney looking at a new mother who is way above his level...

[Portal]

my cats breath smells like catfood.

[ctrlz]

Ugh am I the only one who is starting to hate charlie?

I think they should have eaten him a long time ago.

I also don't understand why anyone still listens to Jack. He's evolved into quite the insufferable prick. Even worse, he's inconsistent. Doesn't believe in the hatch. Then he goes to get the dynamite. They blow it open. Then he doesn't want to go down. Then he says don't push the button. He chases Desmond for no apparent reason. Then he pushes the button.

[Floresiensis]

my cats breath smells like catfood.

Is it still endurable?

[Z3R0C00L]

Yeah, very depressing that the only semi smart person on the island got blown up.

[Sim]

The mish mash of misrepresented philosophies in the first post is annoying.

About as annoying as blanket statements such as this that don't even try to engageme with the discussion. I'm willing to stand corrected on any point, and thanks for the bump.

And yes I agree that there is a 100% scientific 'explanation' for the things happening. But I think you'd be ignoring a whole lot of things that are going on if you reduced the entire thing to a scientific reading.

[Jed]

Interesting points Sim.

This is not to disagree but to discuss and perhaps look from the side at a show who's writers it seems (to both of us) are and will continue to pour more and more allusions and allegory into it.

Two difficulties:
- The audience, a largely secular group whose religious experience is myopic or none (focussed on a single religion or atheist), has little or no experience drawing from allusion or allegory. In short we, the audience, are used to '**** happens' explanations or that it can be found in our holy books (probably the bible). This will definitely hamper our ability (in the general case) to enjoy well used devices.
- There is a 'scientific' element to the show which will constantly challenge the full exploration of allegory or metaphor as devices to model the show. Id est how can Jack continue to be "Man of science" if pseudoscience abounds to propel the show forward. What's more if Sayid becomes "the professor" and makes radios out of coconuts (he's nearly there) he will lose the allegorical nature of his character.

Fun?... Wow! :LOL:

[Ravenous]

Ugh am I the only one who is starting to hate charlie?

He was a jerk to hurley, he is going to be on drugs again, he is all gooney looking at a new mother who is way above his level...

I am liking him less, that is for sure.

You are right, Claire is way out of Charlie's league.

[Jed]

That's why Locke is going to jump his claim. :)

[shred]

I was wondering if you could tell me, what is your face before your parents' birth?
I'm so glad you asked. My face, before the birth of my parents, was the face of my Great-grandma Emma Smith. This has been a discussion of much enthusiasm in my family (which, as it turns out, has taken place only after my own birth, at which time I bore a face.) The face appearing on my father (again, a phenomenon observable only after his actual birth) is not the face of Emma Smith (a woman who, it turns out, was his Grandma) but the face of his Grandpa Tom (a man who is not, as far as anyone knows, related by blood to the said Emma Smith, which is one reason why he saw fit to marry her.) This, of course, begs the question of my mother's face.

My mother's face is the face of her Great Aunt Asenath (a fact unknown to the aged lady since she was sometime dead before the birth of my mother at which time it became possible to view the face in question and to draw conclusions, based on direct observation, about the clear similarities between my mother's visage and that of Great Aunt Asenath.) The old dear had, among other characteristics, a curious growth pattern of the hairs of her eyebrows, a pattern clearly observable on the face of my mother, made more pronounced, as it turned out, as my mother continued to live after the episode of her birth and, indeed, grew older.

I digress; we are here to discuss the phenomenon of my face. There has been much discussion in my family concerning the astonishing fact that my face resembles an ancestor on the paternal side but bears none from the maternal side. (This, it has been postulated, is a good thing; evolution seems to favor the offspring who resemble the male parent since, as we all know, "Mother's baby, father's maybe.") Of course, there would be no need to question my mother's virtue, so the fact that I resemble my father's Grandma is simply a happy accident. (She was a fine, handsome woman.) Certain persons related to me in a blood line (who do not, as it turns out, resemble themselves Great grandma Emma but instead her husband, Great grandpa Tom, a most unfortunate circumstance as the old dear had a singualarly unusual nose, the geometry of which was a puzzler to all who viewed it) have oft bemoaned the fact that the visage of Great grandma Emma should visit itself upon me and me alone. I can but pity them; it is indeed a great fortune that fate saw fit to endow me with the face of that sainted woman, lo, even before the occasion of my birth.

Behold the answer to your question...or perhaps it was genetics. Perhaps the shuffling of genes, over a number of generations, resulted in the face I bore at the occasion of my birth. Perhaps, in some way, it was predictable that I would bear some resemblence to the persons who had produced my ancestors and to those ancestors out of the time of memory. Pity, we don't know, precisely, the specific characteristics of the faces of those ancient ancestors. We do, of course, know the faces of Great grandma Emma and her husband Tom (he of the unsusal nose) because we have the happy circumstance of the invention of photography happening near the period of time during which Great grandma Emma and her husband Tom chose to marry. There hangs on the wall of the living room of my Auntie Em in Calgary the very photo to which I allude. (It might be of interest to you to know that I seem to be the only member of the family thus far to resemble Great grandma Emma so closely.)

One can only wonder what the effect would have been on the story of Oedipus if the Delphic oracle had had avaialable a photgraph of the man's biological parents and had told Oedipus "These are they." Doubtless it would have changed the story a wee bit. The "classics" endure; science progresses. Perhaps one influences the other in the centuries-old production of literature?

[Sim]

Spectacular, Shred! A fine read indeed. :)

Of course, the origin of the question - what is your face before your parents' birth - is to be found in the early writings of Budhist masters and it is a typical Zen koan meant to strike at the central uncertainty of rational explanation. In other words, the deep thought experiment gets at deep questions of how do we know what we know and isn't every explanation itself predicated on other explanations that on some level become items of faith.

Your personal example nails this, since you use the scientific language and technological proof of your time as the foundation for your understanding...an understanding that is highly historically situated and contextually contingent as you so wonderfully point out with the Oedipus counter-point.

And that's why you're totally correct in pointing out that:

The "classics" endure; science progresses. Perhaps one influences the other in the centuries-old production of literature?

And bringing it home, I'm suggesting that these central questions - "How do we know what we know?" and "Who am I; what is my reason for exisiting?" - are the key and age old existential questions at the heart of LOST as a work of 'literature.'

Why am I here? Who are these other people stranded in this world with me? How can I really know or trust them? Do I really even know myself? Am I being manipulated? Do I have a larger role to play?

Just like the Zen koan, different people will draw on different contexts to project their own interpretations onto what is effectively a wide open question.

[Sim]

Two difficulties:

- The audience, a largely secular group whose religious experience is myopic or none (focussed on a single religion or atheist), has little or no experience drawing from allusion or allegory. In short we, the audience, are used to '**** happens' explanations or that it can be found in our holy books (probably the bible). This will definitely hamper our ability (in the general case) to enjoy well used devices.

- There is a 'scientific' element to the show which will constantly challenge the full exploration of allegory or metaphor as devices to model the show. Id est how can Jack continue to be "Man of science" if pseudoscience abounds to propel the show forward.

Oh, I have no doubt that the vast majority of people will latch on to this or that interpretation they can force everything into (or else ignore.)

Watching audience reactions to the Matrix trilogy was telling enough. American audiences had no problem with the first movie - a story of juvenile awakening and lashing out against a false, manufactured world. What quickly confused them was the much more 'religious' argument of the latter two flics that began to delve into an Eastern understanding in which the 'illusory' nature of the world is simply taken for granted - everything IS false everything IS manufactured, and struggling against it is actually what causes suffering in the world. By the time the main theological point of the trilogy was presented - that you have to stop fighting, find your role in the world, and surrender to it - most had gotten off the ride.

So you're totally right in pointing out that the US audience isn't terribly litterate when if comes to truly religious themes. Not surprising that the Book of Job isn't in the top ten!

As for science...people don't understand that too well either! Consider this - if I flipped a coin 100 times and got nothing but heads most people would go nuts saying that the outcome is impossible. But clearly it is possible and SOME probability is still a probability. In other words, as evidenced by the anti-evolution movement - when things start 'feeling' wrong and outside of very basic folk understandings of things, people are prone to just reject scientific fact outright.

People also have a serious 'norm' bias and use all sorts of shortcuts for understanding the world - if something should almost never happen, people just jump to it should NEVER HAPPEN. This is compounded by the know it all syndrom - I don't find this or that 'realistic' therefore it's wrong.

But the experience of the Japanese in Hiroshima or Native Americans staring out at the approaching galleons prove that the realm of the 'scientifically possible' just might be larger than what your average, common person knows. There are many strange things in this world, corporate and governmental and otherwise, that most know nothing about.

If there's a one in a trillion chance that some quirky industialist has discovered the secret of remote viewing or advanced robotic weapons systems that are totally self-camoflaging and is experimenting with them on a remote island, that's still a possibility. And when you look at it that way, a remote island is exactly where those things would exist if they existed anywhere...and on and on. :)

So yes, people live in a nice, narrow band or self-enforced certainty. Deep questions do not concern them, since if they did, there would be cause for real concern! And that's why we need allegory - fictional acounts that serve as mirrors onto which we can project our fundamental fears and uncertainties.

Our deep suspicion that the interests of others may not be our own. Our repressed discomfort at living in a technologically dominated world and real anxiety at what it might do to us (hell we open on a plane crash!) Our moral terror that maybe, just maybe we're not living the life we were meant to live. Its easier to confront such things if we create distance with allegory.

And that's what I believe explains the huge success and fanaticism - bordering on obsession for some - of this TV program. And though they may not know what they do...we can forgive the audience. :)

[Jed]

We are settling on agreement (not that we started with disagreement but that it is being refined). My concern is that you have misread my point on science.

My point is not the supposition of some fantastic (improbable or even impossible) discovery or invention and the susequent necessary suspension of disbelief; my point is the willy-nilly disregard for science.

Let me explain: Many of today's foremost scientists revel in science fiction. Not necessarily the robot- from- outer-space kind but rather the low key type where one quirk of science is introduced and the plot follows the resultant twists. (Kurt Vonnegut or perhaps John Wyndham is the master of this.) It is not necessary in fiction to have a literal copy of reality in all ways except the characters.

Normally in such books or movies (or television since that's what we are talking about) there will be a scene that describes, "... we have discovered..." or "... there seem to be strange properties..." This enables us to suspend disbelief in that *one* area. There may be an explanation that allows us to suspend our disbelief in several areas. As always there will need to be an amount of grace given since introducing a physical impossiblilty will generate subsequent impossible outcomes. That notwithstanding this can be accepted (enjoyed!).

It is when the writer(s) disregard the distinction between possible and impossible elsewhere. If there has been a discovery that allows remote viewing it does not follow that magnetism can bring down aluminum aircraft or cause illness.

My concern as mentioned in my first point is simply this: Enjoy the fantastic but maintain credibility.

I am enjoying our discussion.

[HurleyBurley]

Let me begin by telling you how the entire Lost series will come to an end.

In several years' time (call it three if the writers are prinicipled and resist an X-Files-esque demise) the surviving survivors will be preparing to finally leave the island for good. And in the heartbreaking final moments of what will have become by then a TV sensation more beloved than MASH, as the strings reach their aching crecendo, one survivor will choose to stay behind.

The final image will be of Locke in bunker #3, resigned to or perhaps graced by fate, to redeem (if not save) the world through his faith...an enlightentned diety bound by his commitment to his friends - and all sentient beings! - to guard them from afar by pushing a button. What this final act means will be the subject of debate for years...just as it has been for millenia.

***

And as Locke remains behind as the others leave...the EVERYMAN who is both fool and savior...the show will conclude on the central question that drives it...what is it all about? Why do we exist? What is the meaning of it all? WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?
horrible but goooood ('ceptin' the "diety" part - can dieties be fools?)
The historical success of this TV show will be measured by the degree to which it powerfully presents the perpectives that people have used to approach the existential enormity of this question while elevating all answers and rejecting all as definative.Hmmmm . . . . maybe this explains why Hurley is my fav and why I find his storyline so amusing. Well, that and this:

Chance and Coincidence

On a long enough time line and given an infinity of posibilities, even a one in a trillion, trillion chance WILL happen. That's Hurley's bad luck, that's Jack knowing Desmond, that's a plane breaking up in flight and most people surviving, and that's the thousands of factors that needed to come together for the events of the show to unfold...and that's life.

Some things will never be 'explained' using simple causal explanations because, contrarty to what we want to believe, causality is never simple. A secular, 'sh*t happens' explanation of the events on LOST will always be possible. But it goes deeper...the fundamental absurdaty of things, the unintended randomness of it all is not just the stuff of Camu but also of Zen. It IS totally meaningless...and in that fact, the world derives its meaning.

But, Jed, I totally disagree with your notion that the Bible leads people to the "**** happens" philosophy - unless you're a liberal Christian such as myself who believes that God has a really good sense of humor and that a person can be Christian while still mantaining that the Bible is as "god-breathed" as Shakespeare (hi, gildenstern!).

[HurleyBurley]

Sim, I have to say that I don't believe that the number of allegorical themes that can be identified in LOST are intentional beyond the main goal of keeping the series viable. Throw in enough crap and you're likely to please a whole swath of humanity. The main point is the struggle between science and faith, the explained and the unexplainable. The rest just contributes to that.

[Jed]

I'll let Sim give his own answers (and done well I will assume), but here are my thoughts on your thoughtful comments:

Yes indeed 'dieties' can be fools. In western religions this is not as common but old world views of the devil were often as a (sometimes) fool. Many eastern religions have 'fool gods' and fools were quite common amonst the religions and myths of Norse, Greek and Roman gods. (they're often my favourites)

Despite my desire for order coupled with suspenstion of disbelief, I too REALLY love the idea of the absurdity and randomness bringing us to the fantastic improbable outcome we all expect. This is going to make the show as fantastic as it will be.

I don't think we disagree... I miscommunicated to you or you misread. It is the secular nature of our society which leads people to **** happens conclusion (and liberal Christianity, Islam etc) OR the biblical centric training that leads us to the belief that the answer is in the bible.

Many other religions believe that the answer is found within *us*.

[ctrlz]

Throw in enough crap and you're likely to please a whole swath of humanity.
Well, it helps if you have hot chicks, too:eek:

I think this thread is already running longer than the show.

[Jed]

This whole literary thing is 'cuz chicks dig it. ;)

Dude! have you SEEN the bigspaceship1 thread? :LOL:

[ctrlz]

For those who are looking for 'the answer' in this mix of science, faith, and conspiracy, I think we can confidently conclude that you'll never get one. Or rather, you'll get many competing explanations that are ALL true...given each perspective.

Let's talk about the show.

I was struck by the choice of music for the season 2 opener, Mama Cass singing "Make Your Own Kind Of Music." I mean we heard it over and over, so I'm guessing it might be an in-your-face kind of clue along the lines of "we never should have survived this crash."

The lyric seems to directly correlate with one of your main arguments, Sim. I think it is a bit of foreshadowing for the season, perhaps the hatch in particular. The idea being there are multiple interpretations for what they find.

Thoughts?

[HurleyBurley]

I'll let Sim give his own answers (and done well I will assume), but here are my thoughts on your thoughtful comments:

Yes indeed 'dieties' can be fools. In western religions this is not as common but old world views of the devil were often as a (sometimes) fool. Many eastern religions have 'fool gods' and fools were quite common amonst the religions and myths of Norse, Greek and Roman gods. (they're often my favourites)

Despite my desire for order coupled with suspenstion of disbelief, I too REALLY love the idea of the absurdity and randomness bringing us to the fantastic improbable outcome we all expect. This is going to make the show as fantastic as it will be.

I don't think we disagree... I miscommunicated to you or you misread. It is the secular nature of our society which leads people to **** happens conclusion (and liberal Christianity, Islam etc) OR the biblical centric training that leads us to the belief that the answer is in the bible.

Many other religions believe that the answer is found within *us*.
But it's the nature of our society that renders us incapable of recognizing religious allusions or allegory outside our own religious tradition (or lack thereof)? Ouch. And for a minute I thought I was going to be able to write home to mom and dad about how I finally found a way to use my major (enjoying Lost!) even though I'm still not making a living with it.

These "fool" gods. Were they simultaneously foolhardy and noble? At the same time? I forget. Use it or lose it . . . . .

Pretty cool how I'm securlarly Christian, btw. ;)

[Jed]

"But it's the nature of our society that renders us incapable of recognizing religious allusions or allegory outside our own religious tradition (or lack thereof)?

My point exactly. :)

The fool gods can be of either variety. There are many fool gods who bestow wisdom while pursuing foolish endeavours. While not a god, Nasreddin Hoja is a mythical foolish holy man popular in Turkey and that part of the world. He's hilariously foolish but always leads you to the point. Some of his stories are on line.

Fool gods tend more to mischief and leading mortals to sin. Loki (nordic diety) could be a fool god. More often than not he was a pain in the ass executing orders from Odin in a way to be malevolent, but often he was cast a fool.

Not unusual for religions to be secularized in the west. The adjective "fundamentalist" tends to apply to those non secularized and this is commonly a perjorative.


Z: I think there is a LOT to the music. I need to spend more time thinking about it. :)

[shred]

Let's talk about the show.

Let's. This show is rooted in Western traditions (no, not John Wayne) even though it gives us Dharma and Dr. Candle. ctrlz's point about the music is telling. What I see here is a send-up of the kooky idealism marinated in Eastern influences and frosted with pop culture which was the 1970s. Mama Cass gives it a voice. The dabbling in Eastern mysticsm of the era was part and parcel of this silly movement. The motif of faith in "Lost" is illustrated in several ways, from Dharma to Locke to Rose. This is contrasted by the motif of Science, heretofore represented by Jack, and now, paradoxically, by the Eastern "philosophies" of a "scientific research project" funded by an arms dealer. This stew is Boar Curry smothered with ketchup.

Because I was alive (and cognizant) during the era, I find myself jeering heartily at Desmond, Hanso, and all their ilk. I want science to win. Again, here I am planted squarely in Western tradition and happily Zen-free. I will interpret "Lost" from this perspective, and if my "allegory" is flawed, so be it. How will the story end? Jack will publish "An epedimiological study of indigenous contagions in a Tropical environment" in JAMA, but he'll be invited on Oprah where she'll ask him only questions about Kate and how many recipes for boar meat they invented.

[HurleyBurley]

Fool gods tend more to mischief . . . Well, that describes Locke ;)
Not unusual for religions to be secularized in the west.Well . . . puh . . . you don't even know me.
The adjective "fundamentalist" tends to apply to those non secularized and this is commonly a perjorative.So does the adjective "liberal" (if you meant "pejorative") but that doesn't make me any less religious or any more secular than they are.

Let's. This show is rooted in Western traditions (no, not John Wayne) even though it gives us Dharma and Dr. Candle. ctrlz's point about the music is telling. What I see here is a send-up of the kooky idealism marinated in Eastern influences and frosted with pop culture which was the 1970s. Mama Cass gives it a voice. The dabbling in Eastern mysticsm of the era was part and parcel of this silly movement. The motif of faith in "Lost" is illustrated in several ways, from Dharma to Locke to Rose. This is contrasted by the motif of Science, heretofore represented by Jack, and now, paradoxically, by the Eastern "philosophies" of a "scientific research project" funded by an arms dealer. This stew is Boar Curry smothered with ketchup.

Because I was alive (and cognizant) during the era, I find myself jeering heartily at Desmond, Hanso, and all their ilk. I want science to win. Again, here I am planted squarely in Western tradition and happily Zen-free. I will interpret "Lost" from this perspective, and if my "allegory" is flawed, so be it. How will the story end? Jack will publish "An epedimiological study of indigenous contagions in a Tropical environment" in JAMA, but he'll be invited on Oprah where she'll ask him only questions about Kate and how many recipes for boar meat they invented.You need a few more cooking allusions in your post. How bout . . . the motif of faith in "Lost" is served up in several ways. But Dude, you need to work on a few. Marinated and frosted? Yuck. ;)

"kooky" idealism? "silly?"

Dude, the 70's was about getting tail. The 60's however . . .

But I think Sim's point is that no perspective is flawed - it's just the one that you have. Which, btw, is what makes every tv show sucessful or not - whether or not people can relate to it. This is one, however, that a whole bunch of people can relate to - especially if it never resolves which competing perspective is the "correct" one.

[Jed]

I like you comments. It is very Zen that while you claim to be Zen-free the ending you describe is a wonderful Zen Koan. :LOL:

Silly movement? Hmmm, a tad ethnocentristic are we? People dabbled in Christianity a lot then too... silly movement? An the Black Muslims took firm root then too... Weren't people simply trying to figure out what the hell is going on?

And why jeer at Desmond? He was a little boy in the 70's.

[shred]

But Dude, you need to work on a few. Marinated and frosted? Yuck. ;)
That was my point...but I should have used "served up" as you say...
Dude, the 70's was about getting tail. The 60's however . . .
Tail-getting is an activity not confined to the limits of any decade (or culture or philosophy or...) The 60s were the 70s--the end of one decade just oozed into the beginning of the next. I say the 70s because Mama Cass told me to.

Silly? Yes, it was philosophical dabbling seasoned with chemicals. The whole point of the "movement" was to rebel (colorfully) against the established culture and, as HB points out, chase tail. Ethnocentrality? You betcha. The fact that some good things came out of the whole "scene" is a happy accident; while professing their idealism, some people realized they actually believed it.
Why do I jeer at Desmond? I guess I didn't make that clear--I jeer at his ilk, all the phonies spouting pseudo-philosophy when they could have been in the lab doing something useful to promote science for the betterment of mankind. I'm old, set in my ways, grouchy, and I had to walk to school through the snow barefoot both ways. If you kids don't get off my lawn, I'm gonna belt you with my cane.

[Jed]

Note to HurleyBurley: Hopefully a helpful tip... the mods will get up your nose about double posting... I don't give a rat's... just a tip. :)


Well, that describes Locke ;)

It does. Charlie too from time to time.


Well . . . puh . . . you don't even know me.

Nope, I don't. You said you were a secular Christian and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you are from the west. What I say stands... the secularization of western society is well known.


So does the adjective "liberal" (if you meant "pejorative") but that doesn't make me any less religious or any more secular than they are.

LMAO!! Yes you are correct liberal can be 'pejorative'. The point is that fundamentalism has become pejorative because of the secularization of society. If you take offence to the term 'fundamentalist Christian' you might agree that the term 'fundamentalist Islamic' is clearly not meant as a compliment.

I have to assume you are trying to be funny because since you know all about words you know that saying "but that doesn't make me any less religious or any more secular than they are" is just goofy. Secular as you well know means:
a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal
b : not overtly or specifically religious
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical

You said you were '[not overtly or specifically religious] Christian' so *yes* that does make you less religious than a fundamental Christian. Unless of course you meant you are a not a cleric. :LOL:


Ethnocentrality? You betcha. The fact that some good things came out of the whole "scene" is a happy accident; while professing their idealism, some people realized they actually believed it.
Why do I jeer at Desmond? I guess I didn't make that clear--I jeer at his ilk, all the phonies spouting pseudo-philosophy when they could have been in the lab doing something useful to promote science for the betterment of mankind.

I must have been missed something. He came off more as a jock to me... training for his round the world race. Granted he did apparently bail on medecine. :confused:

I'm old, set in my ways, grouchy, and I had to walk to school through the snow barefoot both ways. If you kids don't get off my lawn, I'm gonna belt you with my cane.

LOL! :) I had to walk to school through the snow and it was UPHILL BOTH WAYS! ;)

[Sim]

Rock on. Very good points, all. Look forward to leaving work and working through some of these ideas.

In the mean time, I think HB has found an even more pointed way to state the main idea I'm proposing:

But I think Sim's point is that no perspective is flawed - it's just the one that you have. Which, btw, is what makes every tv show sucessful or not - whether or not people can relate to it. This is one, however, that a whole bunch of people can relate to - especially if it never resolves which competing perspective is the "correct" one.

Yeppers. Though, if you really pull that off - allow for all interpretations, while 'authorizing' no single reading - you've done something pretty remarkable since a perspective that allows for all perspective is still ONE UNIQUE perspective. And that way of looking at things has a very interesting history... (more soon.)

I was struck by the choice of music for the season 2 opener, Mama Cass singing "Make Your Own Kind Of Music." I mean we heard it over and over, so I'm guessing it might be an in-your-face kind of clue along the lines of "we never should have survived this crash."

The lyric seems to directly correlate with one of your main arguments, Sim. I think it is a bit of foreshadowing for the season, perhaps the hatch in particular. The idea being there are multiple interpretations for what they find.

Thoughts?


Now that's fairly brilliant and if I had to do it all over again, that would be the name of this thread. And that I think is also HB's insight - the best art is a bit of a cultural ink blot test, a blank slate or mirror ripe for the projection of everyone's world view. It is what you want it to be. It means no-one-thing and so it means what you want it to. And that as HB notes is the very definition of RELATING to something, or quite literally finding the fundamentally familiar in something radically alien..which is also the definition of allegory.

But let's not confuse that with meaninglessness. It's all to easy to open up possibilities and create buzz and interest only to off-load most participants by shutting down most readings. Both X-Files and Twin Peaks did that and I'd go as far as saying that Desparate Housewives is heading in the same direction. Once you definatively answer questions, people stop asking them...and drift away.

That's why it will be interesting to see how this unfolds (notice I don't say 'where this goes.') The writers have proven themselves capable of proliferating the options, unfolding the possible readings, without locking people into any single one. And that's the greatest respect for an audience - inviting them to make their own kind of music.

If that wasn't the case, we wouldn't be here right now. You can disagree...but that's entirly the point. :)

[honestjoe]

Let me start by saying that i am truly in awe of your life experiences (i had incorrectly assumed some of you were younger) as well as how well versed you guys are in the various schools of philosophy, theology, science, etc. Also, i am truly impressed by your deep understanding of story elements and character development from a story writing perspective (except that all of you mispelled deity :p ).

But i have to wonder a couple of things. Don't the writers (of LOST) already have their hands full with simply keeping track of the events themselves, and their progression? In other words, this highly intricate web of characters and the chronology of events is somehow trying to manifest through simple dialogue on a 42 minute show, isnt that difficult enough for them? And what about the average viewer? I cant imagine that they even (get to) consider half the stuff you guys expounded on earlier in this thread. They simply dont have that level of understanding of "things" or they dont devote the mental effort to it. So do you think the writers are busy writing from a philosophical standpoint, or from a plot standpoint when they turn in their drafts?

As to the "answer" to LOST. More and more i get the feeling that people are going to be disappointed (one way or another) when the show finally gives us some "answers". It's pretty easy to set up mystery/conflict, but where most writers struggle is in the resolution. Given the very tight corner that they seem to be writing (and quoting publicly) themselves into, (it seems) nothing short of a deus ex machina is gonna get them out. Already i see some people posting "lost is starting to suck" threads, indicating the disappointment they feel with the "answers" they are getting. LOST has no choice but to keep posing more questions, and complicating the "web" even further, especially if it is to reach 5 seasons (as some of you expect). Once they actually begin to "resolve" things, they run the risk of losing their appeal by being cheesy or sci-fi or too incredible or too scientific or too theological or what have you. Personally, i would like there to be a "logical" or "scientifically" plausible explanation to the show. But i find it funny to speak of science and psychicly manifested polar bears in the same breath (nevermind surviving plane crashes and other scientific "anomallies").

I think we all want the mystery to continue, and as long as the show continues to leave the "main" questions unanswered, then we still have plenty of "things" left to ponder. There is a balance however, if they go too long without giving answers (which actually pose brand new questions) they run the risk of disappointing (BUT NOT LOSING) their fan base. That's the real problem, that even if you begin (or have begun) to hate LOST, you're still gonna watch it. So the writers (know they) have alot of room to fail, without necessarily losing us... so no matter where they go with it (like using the delay-tactics they used in the hatehugo episode), can you honestly say you would abandon the show (i.e. never watch it again)? somehow i dont think so...

One day that reality may actually serve to be the demise of the "greatness" of LOST. The writers (exploited by their own success) will over play their hands and leave everyone disappointed (while still cashing in).
Let's hope not.
;)

[shred]

Let me start by saying that i am truly in awe of your life experiences (i had incorrectly assumed some of you were younger) as well as how well versed you guys are in the various schools of philosophy, theology, science, etc. Also, i am truly impressed by your deep understanding of story elements and character development from a story writing perspective
I thank you for assuming some of us were younger. I am, in fact, only slightly older than my teeth (and possibly Locke's teeth, too.) We do have life experience, and some of even have jobs (which in my case is why I spend so much time wasting it on this forum. Who wants to work?) Heck, our own ctrlz could trade places with Jack! (Although I don't think he wants to...) I speak for all of us (which I'm always happy to do, ususally without consulting the rest of us first) when I say many thanks for the kinds words.

However, you also say:
(except that all of you mispelled deity :p )
and to that I say: 'tweren't me!

[HurleyBurley]

I'm 29

Nope, I don't. You said you were a secular Christian and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you are from the west. What I say stands... the secularization of western society is well known.Oh. I thought you did when you said this:

It is the secular nature of our society which leads people to **** happens conclusion (and liberal Christianity, Islam etc) OR the biblical centric training that leads us to the belief that the answer is in the bible.See, I've had the bible-centric training (the extent of which is debatable - and believe me the fundies are skeptical) and yet "**** happens" pretty much describes my understanding of the world.

LMAO!! Yes you are correct liberal can be 'pejorative'. The point is that fundamentalism has become pejorative because of the secularization of society. If you take offence to the term 'fundamentalist Christian' you might agree that the term 'fundamentalist Islamic' is clearly not meant as a compliment. You sure? Cause in this country, (the US - you assumed correctly) it is more often the case that "liberal" is considered pejorative because of the increasing "religiousness" of our society and, sadly, government. While the secularization of western society might be well known, it remains the case that we are now choosing our supreme court justices by their religious convictions. (You're not from around here, are ya? 'Cause we don't spell "offense" that way ;) )

I have to assume you are trying to be funny because since you know all about words you know that saying "but that doesn't make me any less religious or any more secular than they are" is just goofy. Secular as you well know means:
a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal
b : not overtly or specifically religious
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical

You said you were '[not overtly or specifically religious] Christian' so *yes* that does make you less religious than a fundamental Christian. Unless of course you meant you are a not a cleric. :LOL:
Oh, I do know all about words and certain combinations give me a smile but I wouldn't think that they would you necessarily since my sense of humor never seems to be quite the same as the people I encounter - so I'm used to entertaining myself even if I tend to baffle everyone else.

But I guess my next question to you would be how do you define "overtly or specifically religious." Because I am both. And yet I ascribe to the "**** happens" non-biblical interpretation of the way things work - except the Jesus part - I kinda like that part of the book. I might be less "religious" than a fundamental Christian (or not - depending, again, on how you define that) but I strive to be more Christian.

But my initial point was that a person can be secular and yet know a thing or two about allegory. Or don't you agree?

I will say this though: that I sometimes recognize things others don't, I have often attributed to my own myopic religious education. And I suppose that if I had been exposed more to other religions I might recognize more.

But that might be more a shortcoming of our education system (or my own lack of initiative) than our secular society, I'm thinking.

Or, here's a thought: What if it is the result of our increasingly evangelical Christian bent? I mean, some people don't want kids to learn about evolution, for God's sake.

I must have been missed something. He came off more as a jock to me... training for his round the world race. Granted he did apparently bail on medecine. :confused:Me too.

[Raven O'Reilly]

That's why Locke is going to jump his claim. :)


LOL That made me laugh. :D

Guys, keep an eye on double posting. I just merged a few of your double posts together.