|
Post by Becky H on Jan 17, 2005 13:34:17 GMT -5
Wow. I really want to thank all of you for adding so much pleasure to watching a TV show... Been thinking a lot about the names. A friend tells me that Sayid means "directly descended from Mohammed through his daughter" and is sometimes used not only as a name but as a title for a spiritual leader. Shepherd is closely associated with Christianity, and is also, of course, a religious "title" on Firefly. John Locke was a 17th century English philosopher who {was an empiricist, viz., all knowledge comes to us through experience. "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet (tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions. Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of the five senses and a process of reflection.}(brackets indicate a quote from a website--better, more economical summing up than I'd be able to do. Rousseau (out there in the jungle) was an 18th century phillosopher who believed: {In his early writing, Rousseau contended that man is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" (the state of all the other animals, and the condition man was in before the creation of civilization and society), and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society. He viewed society as "articficial" and "corrupt" and that the furthering of society results in the continuing unhappiness of man.} (Another well-summarizing quote.) Anyway, it's hard for me to believe that the writers aren't referencing these bits. Certainly Locke has been teaching by offering experiences, regardless of what each of us might think of his intentions or methods. And the crash has removed everyone from their context of experience, making in a sense a tabula rasa, a blank slate for building new ways of being in the world, within oneself and in relationships. Rousseau, out there in the boonies, refuses to participate in the new society that is building near and on the shore. Does anyone know any more about this stuff? My knowledge tends to be wide but shallow. I've been wanting to post on this since about page ten, but needed time to chew on it and do a little research--also was enjoying the conversation so much. Since I've begun to read so religiously, I may just have to join up officially--something I've never done on a forum before. Hi, Winter! Have you read the thread for "Solitary Man"? We kicked around the significance of Locke and Rousseau there for a bit. I like your added insights.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jan 17, 2005 23:28:37 GMT -5
Wow, Lola! You took so many of my floaty, incoherent thoughts and questions and really put them in an cohorent, intelligent context! Great work! I know others have said it, but great observation of Shannon coming into Boone's room sans shoes. I almost think that it would have been both ickier and more interesting if Boone and Shannon hadn't had sex...if she'd merely gotten him to admit his feelings and real motivations for playing her "superhero" and then just left him twisting. One wonders what Shannon's really motivation for seducing him was, if she was just going to do what she did the next morning. Could it be that she wanted him too? Were her actions a throwing down of the gauntlet, and why then? This: is a nice, succinct summation of what I think the rest of the season will focus on. For all our back and forthing, your comment at the start of the review about "the end justifying the means" seems to be where Locke is going, but will be an interesting issue to puzzle out over the last 10 episodes.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 18, 2005 15:38:10 GMT -5
Wow, Lola! You took so many of my floaty, incoherent thoughts and questions and really put them in an cohorent, intelligent context! Great work! I know others have said it, but great observation of Shannon coming into Boone's room sans shoes. I almost think that it would have been both ickier and more interesting if Boone and Shannon hadn't had sex...if she'd merely gotten him to admit his feelings and real motivations for playing her "superhero" and then just left him twisting. One wonders what Shannon's really motivation for seducing him was, if she was just going to do what she did the next morning. Could it be that she wanted him too? Were her actions a throwing down of the gauntlet, and why then? I am very ambivalent about Shannon and her motivation and feelings. (Hence my whole non-answered question thing.) I think we're gonna have to have a lot more flashback and/or understanding of those two before we'll really get how things are between Boone and her. Actually, I read a very interesting little post regarding one viewer's response to Shannon on Entrenous' LJ. (If interested: www.livejournal.com/users/entrenous88/180310.html ) It's that final shot of her in the chair that got to me. I really really was wondering what was going on in her head. Yep. I think that all our comments regarding black and white and opposites and so on are just going to keep being tested with Locke. He's such an interesting character and the writers are not gonna just let him be boxed into one way or another, I'll bet. We're gonna have a very fun puzzle in him. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Jan 18, 2005 18:07:20 GMT -5
I am very ambivalent about Shannon and her motivation and feelings. (Hence my whole non-answered question thing.) I think we're gonna have to have a lot more flashback and/or understanding of those two before we'll really get how things are between Boone and her. Actually, I read a very interesting little post regarding one viewer's response to Shannon on Entrenous' LJ. (If interested: www.livejournal.com/users/entrenous88/180310.html ) It's that final shot of her in the chair that got to me. I really really was wondering what was going on in her head. Yep. I think that all our comments regarding black and white and opposites and so on are just going to keep being tested with Locke. He's such an interesting character and the writers are not gonna just let him be boxed into one way or another, I'll bet. We're gonna have a very fun puzzle in him. Lola Wow, yes, that's quite a Shannon-discussion. I don't like her, but I feel that I understand her better now, and feel sorry for her.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jan 18, 2005 18:18:00 GMT -5
Wow, yes, that's quite a Shannon-discussion. I don't like her, but I feel that I understand her better now, and feel sorry for her. Hey, is this the same EntreNous who just joined our board?
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Jan 18, 2005 21:50:22 GMT -5
I am very ambivalent about Shannon and her motivation and feelings. (Hence my whole non-answered question thing.) I think we're gonna have to have a lot more flashback and/or understanding of those two before we'll really get how things are between Boone and her. Actually, I read a very interesting little post regarding one viewer's response to Shannon on Entrenous' LJ. (If interested: www.livejournal.com/users/entrenous88/180310.html ) It's that final shot of her in the chair that got to me. I really really was wondering what was going on in her head. Yep. I think that all our comments regarding black and white and opposites and so on are just going to keep being tested with Locke. He's such an interesting character and the writers are not gonna just let him be boxed into one way or another, I'll bet. We're gonna have a very fun puzzle in him. Lola Quite the discussion indeed, and quite the fascinating take on Shannon and her motivations. I'll definitely be keeping this perspective in mind as I watch her interact with the other castaways.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Jan 18, 2005 23:37:40 GMT -5
Wow, yes, that's quite a Shannon-discussion. I don't like her, but I feel that I understand her better now, and feel sorry for her. Me, too. I've been going back and forth all season between seeing her as a sympathetic character and wanting to slap her. Now that I think of it, I'm of two minds about most of the characters, with the exception of Rose and Claire. Thanks for posting the link, Lola.
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Jan 26, 2005 0:59:29 GMT -5
Lola,
Now that I have finally seen the episode and read the entire discussion here on the board, let me say....BRAVO!
You did an excellent job on a rather important and complex episode. I am very impressed with your work and should the need arise, would not hesitate to ask if you would do another review. When I knew I was taking my mom on vacation and would miss an ep or two, Patti and I tossed around potential replacements. A few names came up of people who write and think well, like Spring and Rob... but they both have so much on their plates already. And then I thought "Who's one of the most insightful, questioning members that watch LOST and never fail to come up with intriguing insights and writes them in an interesting, entertaining manner?" It was settled for me right then...Lola, if she wants the job. Patti was in enthusiastic agreement.
So thank you, not jsut for helping me and the site out, but for delivering your interesting views to the entire S'cubie membership...nay, the entire internet as your words and thoughts are now immortalized for them all to read... forever. Scared yet? ;D
Vlad
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Jan 26, 2005 1:13:09 GMT -5
Wow. I really want to thank all of you for adding so much pleasure to watching a TV show... Been thinking a lot about the names. A friend tells me that Sayid means "directly descended from Mohammed through his daughter" and is sometimes used not only as a name but as a title for a spiritual leader. Shepherd is closely associated with Christianity, and is also, of course, a religious "title" on Firefly. John Locke was a 17th century English philosopher who {was an empiricist, viz., all knowledge comes to us through experience. "No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet (tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions. Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of the five senses and a process of reflection.}(brackets indicate a quote from a website--better, more economical summing up than I'd be able to do. Rousseau (out there in the jungle) was an 18th century phillosopher who believed: {In his early writing, Rousseau contended that man is essentially good, a "noble savage" when in the "state of nature" (the state of all the other animals, and the condition man was in before the creation of civilization and society), and that good people are made unhappy and corrupted by their experiences in society. He viewed society as "articficial" and "corrupt" and that the furthering of society results in the continuing unhappiness of man.} (Another well-summarizing quote.) Anyway, it's hard for me to believe that the writers aren't referencing these bits. Certainly Locke has been teaching by offering experiences, regardless of what each of us might think of his intentions or methods. And the crash has removed everyone from their context of experience, making in a sense a tabula rasa, a blank slate for building new ways of being in the world, within oneself and in relationships. Rousseau, out there in the boonies, refuses to participate in the new society that is building near and on the shore. Does anyone know any more about this stuff? My knowledge tends to be wide but shallow. I've been wanting to post on this since about page ten, but needed time to chew on it and do a little research--also was enjoying the conversation so much. Since I've begun to read so religiously, I may just have to join up officially--something I've never done on a forum before. Winter, Your research on John Locke and Rousseau and the whole importance of the names is somethign that we have touched on before, but your quotes neatly and succinctly convey the ideologies behind their theories. It is posts like these that we value so much. Everyone sharing their thoughts, providing the tidbits they have caught, is what makes watching a show like this as a group so rewarding. Each person's catch enhances the enjoyment and sort of ups the bar for watching a little. Sort of like a friendly competition, each person is watching a little harder adn a little more carefully adn truly thinking about what they have seen. LOST is far from a perfect show. Some writers and directors are better than others, but when one looks at the story as an entire piece, each episode as a chapter, then the little flaws are more forgivable. There is no doubt in my mind that LOST is attempting (and succeeding!) at being one of the most thought provoking yet entertaining dramas currently on television. We watch because we really feel like the creators have somethign to say. Sure there are the hotties: Sayid, Sawyer, Jack, Charley, Claire, Kate, Shannon... But the fact is, these actors weren't chosen for their looks alone or any couch casting that I am aware of; instead they all can act...we have seen each one in assorted episodes really bring their character to life. Sorta reminds one of a Whedon show, huh? So, please, jump in. Sign up, get your decoder ring... It's posters like you that we want as members... it is for people like you and by people like you that this place was created. Welcome to the Soulful Spike Society... Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Jan 26, 2005 8:36:53 GMT -5
Lola, Now that I have finally seen the episode and read the entire discussion here on the board, let me say....BRAVO! You did an excellent job on a rather important and complex episode. I am very impressed with your work and should the need arise, would not hesitate to ask if you would do another review. When I knew I was taking my mom on vacation and would miss an ep or two, Patti and I tossed around potential replacements. A few names came up of people who write and think well, like Spring and Rob... but they both have so much on their plates already. And then I thought "Who's one of the most insightful, questioning members that watch LOST and never fail to come up with intriguing insights and writes them in an interesting, entertaining manner?" It was settled for me right then...Lola, if she wants the job. Patti was in enthusiastic agreement. So thank you, not jsut for helping me and the site out, but for delivering your interesting views to the entire S'cubie membership...nay, the entire internet as your words and thoughts are now immortalized for them all to read... forever. Scared yet? ;D Vlad ;D Thanks muchly for the compliment, Vlad. Actually, I had a lot of fun doing it. Of course, that was before you got me all scared. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 1, 2006 21:50:13 GMT -5
Boone's jealous of Sayid. Yay, Hurley. This isn't a game, man. Thought the blonde chick was Shannon at first. Just to show that Boone is straight? Is Shannon faking? Shannon was in Australia, Boone went to "rescue her." Our side. Boone is a nut. Hurley thinks Jin has it in for him. Hee! Jack, it might help not to look so amused. Sun's garden. Kate's thoughts about altruism. Disturbing. Sealed shut with cement. 2 days since they found the hatch how do you open something that can't be opened. Shannon can keep a secret. Really? Locke, obsessive much? Kinky? Yep, Locke is a nutjob. 4 miles from the camp. Sawyer! Does Boone remember? Step-siblings. Kate was telling her BS story to some one she thought wouldn't understand her. Now Kate knows Sun speaks English. Hurley and Jin, Magnet! Clever Sayid. Weebelo. Never heard of that. Wasn't the most popular kid. I can believe that. Hallucination? OMG! It's the "monster." Locke left him tied up so he would meet up with the monster? That didn't take much. Cool. Hiding in one of those trees. They should use them more often. Oh, it's a boar. And Shannon must be real. So Locke tied her up too? High powered magnet demagnetized Locke's compass. It was a set up. Shannon's dad died. What did he do? Kate can keep a secret. Sun can't tell Jin because she loves him. Have you never lied to a man you've loved? Snerk. I love how the interpersonal relationships are developing. What was that that Jin gave Huley? Like Charlie's description of Locke. But Charlie has faith in Locke. Hmm... Beware false prophets. Boone also has faith in Locke, despite everything. Now this is the "monster." Ooh! Pavilion thingie! Boy is this fucked up. Not sure which side is worst. The monster spit Shannon back out. Jeez. Whoa! So that whole thing was a hallucination? I was right the first time. Maybe the monster causes the flashbacks. How did you feel when she died? I felt relieved. Meep. Boone as convert. icky. Just don't run from the monster. It's like that story about the dragon that appears huge from far away, but up close is very tiny. So does this mean that Jack's dad's coffin wasn't really empty? Meaning of the title: "Hearts and Minds" Vietnam War propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 2, 2006 14:50:04 GMT -5
So I missed that bit where Boone realizes that there was a hallucinogen in the paste. Or was there? Because now I'm confused all over again. Did Locke do something similar before Jack's hallucinations of his dad and the coffin and whatnot?
Interesting discussion, though I just skimmed. Everyone has different experiences, and identifying with one character or another lends one to take discussion of the fictional to a personal level.
One thought I will add, is that I think the big thing is consent. Informed consent is a huge deal in human research and in medicine. And then debriefings after the experiment or procedure is concluded.
Also, as I've said before, I absolutely hate the "it's for your own good" argument.
I'm probably not cut out for the army.
Also, personal peeve, I guess, but I'm not really down with framing every problem as an "addiction."
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Apr 2, 2006 17:23:29 GMT -5
So I missed that bit where Boone realizes that there was a hallucinogen in the paste. Or was there? Because now I'm confused all over again. Did Locke do something similar before Jack's hallucinations of his dad and the coffin and whatnot? Interesting discussion, though I just skimmed. Everyone has different experiences, and identifying with one character or another lends one to take discussion of the fictional to a personal level. One thought I will add, is that I think the big thing is consent. Informed consent is a huge deal in human research and in medicine. And then debriefings after the experiment or procedure is concluded. Also, as I've said before, I absolutely hate the "it's for your own good" argument. I'm probably not cut out for the army. Also, personal peeve, I guess, but I'm not really down with framing every problem as an "addiction." Yeah - it's the lack of consent that doesn't sit well with me. Drugging someone without their consent is well . . . . not the best choice, IMHO. And it wasn't some life and death issue, it was one person pushing their agenda on another person.
|
|