The Necessary Fall from Grace

For some time, I have been pondering a philosophical concept that seems best described as "a necessary fall from grace." Basically, it is related to the "prodigal son," but focuses more on cause and effect. It describes when a person believes one thing, but through a chain of events, practices another—only to learn the true meaning of what he once accepted on blind faith. In reality, this should propel a person to greater heights, though it seems that the media uses this only to justify mediocrity.

What do I feel is embodied in the phrase "necessary fall from grace"? For a thing to be thought of as "necessary," it must be vital to affect a particular end. If the end is important, then it is also necessary that the end be greater than the beginning—else the fall be a loss. The meaning of the word "grace" in this context is inseparable from the colloquialism, "fall from grace." So I am not talking about a forgiving attitude, as such, but the state of having a clean slate. Therefore, the beginning of this process is any given state that is deemed a position from which one could fall.

To fall from a position requires a certain height above normal. No one ever describes falling from average, only falling to less-than-average. It also requires a force outside oneself as a catalyst. A person cannot affect his own fall, and while he can seek to fall or risk a fall, he can only jump by his own conscious decision. Often the catalyst for this fall from grace is a certain frustration with the position itself. When one reaches an equilibrium with his own understanding of morality, he becomes frustrated with the sense that he will never reach higher climbs. When this happens, he either turns the frustration outward, becoming judgmental of others, or inward, where he may abandon his sense of morality in search of another way. This is the necessary fall from grace, which must be endured time and time again lest we become judgmental and trapped.

This is something that happened to me shortly after I got out of high school. Without going into details, I naively thought of myself as "perfect." I was willingly ignorant of my ignorance. I couldn't seem to move further in life—being trapped between what I felt I wanted and what I knew to be right. So I abandoned what I knew to be right and embraced what I knew to be wrong. My sins redefined my sense of morality, and through a series of events I found my way back to the old position of grace, but with an understanding that allowed me to pass my previous ceiling.

A famous example of this type of story is "It's a Wonderful Life." George Bailey has dreams—big dreams, great dreams, exciting dreams. He wishes for a million dollars and wants to travel the world, but he does the right thing in his estimation and watches the family business while his younger brother goes off to college. Obstacle after obstacle assail poor George, and he becomes tired and frustrated.

At the very moment when he is about to do something rash, we have an intervention in the form of an angel, who shows George what the world would be like if he was never born. In a way, George experiences the lessons of a fall from grace without actually going through the motions. In the end, he realizes that he really has had an impact on the world around him and that his life really is "wonderful."

The only difference is that while George does temporarily go astray, he does not reach new heights in the end, but merely comes to a greater understanding and appreciation for what he has. I suppose that from there, he can move to new heights. Though, to me it seems to disregard the importance of his dreams. George's angel is a pre-modern solution to the question of destiny and a person's fit. In other words, God put him where he is to serve others, but he cannot expect his own wishes to come true. He is honor-bound to learn to appreciate what he has been given and what impact he has made.

By contrast, the idea of a necessary fall from grace activates that soul searching that all men (I can only speak for men on this) do at critical points in their lives. Instead of fearfully pondering the why and wherefore, the fall requires action and risk—and a sincere questioning of all ones moral beliefs. Even if those beliefs turn out to have been 99% correct, would not the wisdom earned be worth gaining that last 1%?

FEATURED MEDIA
It's a Wonderful Life - One of AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies.

"LOST: The Substitute"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"The Substitute"

As with many titles in LOST, the title of this episode has multiple meanings. Not only does it refer literally to John Locke's new job at the end of the episode, but it also refers to the selecting of "candidates" to replace Jacob. It is difficult to say what makes them candidates. Given their histories, only two of the remaining candidates could definitely be labeled as "good" (#8 Hugo Reyes and #23 Jack Shephard).

As for the remaining four, #42 is listed as "Kwon," which could be Sun (who I take to be good), or Jin (who is good, but has a cruel history). Sayid is listed as #16, and while serving the good of the survivors on the Island, he has history as a torturer and an assassin. Number 15 is James Ford, a con man apparently by nature, though it is possible that Jacob's intervention ("The Incident") led him down that path. And finally, #4 is John Locke, the focus of this episode who is no longer a candidate.

The Nature of Good and Evil

In the Judeo-Christian faiths, good and evil are analogous with "light" and "darkness." I take this to mean that evil is then defined as the absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. Up to this point in the show, it is difficult to say that anyone can really be defined as evil by this definition. All the characters have shown some redeemable qualities (even Ben, who refused to kill baby Alex, then felt remorse for her death). However, the Bible also refers to people "walking in darkness" which seems to indicate a state of being lost more than the act of doing wrong.

By that definition, Locke is a character who fluctuates in this capacity. However, if good is the adherence to purpose and evil is the lack of purpose, then perhaps it is not in the capacity of people to be truly evil. That being said, to willingly ignore one's own purpose in pursuit of another purpose may constitute spiritual theft. To keep another person blind to his purpose for the sake of one's own purpose or stolen purpose, is an evil, in my estimation. To sense that one has a purpose—and to have a need to fill it—is a prime motivator for man, and the entire discussion of philosophy.

Which brings me to the philosopher, John Locke. I highly recommend at least reading through his Wikipedia page for material to ponder along with the character's story, but it is very important that anyone interested in thought and philosophy add Two Treatises of Government to his reading list. The interesting thing to note is that while fictional John Locke calls himself a "man of faith" and a "hunter" ("Further Instructions"), his namesake is a scientist—a man of rational thought.

His postulate that man is born a blank slate or tabula rasa, seems to contradict the whole struggle that is our fictional character, and indeed is the whole show. LOST Locke desires to be a hunter and a man of faith, but his nature is that of a farmer and a scientist. Is a person bound by the laws of his own nature, or can he rebel against his nature successfully? If he can, should he—or is it a form of sin to rebel against a set nature? Can a person change his nature, thus negating the argument? Are we born with a purpose and an an innate nature, or are we a culmination of outside influences on a blank slate (nurture)?

The Life and Death of John Locke?

This episode seems to mark the absolute death of John Locke. We see his body in the coffin ("There's No Place Like Home"), we see how he died ("The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham"), then we see his body on the beach ("The Incident"). Yet the question remained, "Is he really dead forever?"

Enter Season 6 with its flash-sideways and we see John Locke alive and well in "LA X." There was hope that this character was not dead to the series. However, with this episode, the writers of LOST seem to have finished off the character of John Locke—the man who could miraculously walk again ("Walkabout"), the man of faith ("Man of Science, Man of Faith"), the man of wisdom ("White Rabbit" and "The Moth"). In "The Substitute," we see the clearly decaying remains of Locke lowered into the ground amongst all the other "survivors" of Oceanic 815. And his name is crossed off by the Man in Black, in Locke's form.

But what of the surviving Locke—the man that did not crash on the Island, but went home to his life? He gives up. He sells out. He buckles under the weight of what he "cannot" do. He decides that there are no such things as miracles. It seems that the absence of the Island has stolen Locke's very spirit, unless, of course it was not his spirit to begin with. Perhaps that Locke we knew in Season 1 was not really the real Locke. Perhaps he was always an frustrated man who never was special until he came to the Island.

I found myself identifying with this character, so for me, this is especially painful. I love the archetype of the wiseman, who knows his place and seems to be in tune with nature. I even felt his pain as he began to struggle with deeper questions about his purpose, becoming lost in the darkness for a period of time. Even though he doubted his own faith, circumstances proved his doubt wrong ("Live Together, Die Alone"), and his vision was cleared. This process repeated, of course, but it always left him closer to his destiny as the leader of the Island. Or so we were led to believe.

However, it seems that this entire process was merely for the benefit of the Man in Black to use him to get to Jacob. I am inclined to believe that the Man in Black is evil simply because of this manipulation. As I said earlier, it seems to me that the theft of purpose is an evil, and the substitution of a false purpose for a real one, certainly counts as theft. For a character like the Man in Black—one who purports a faithlessness toward people and toward the Island—to manipulate a man of faith in order to kill the one man who asks for the faith of his people, seems blasphemous (if that is not too strong a word).

And yet, the sideways timeline seems to reveal that Locke found his calling as a teacher and a [soon-to-be] married man. Is this the life or the death of John Locke?

FEATURED MEDIA
LOST Season 6!
Two Treatises on Government by John Locke.

The Producer's Mind

The idea of production is, in its most basic form, the refining of raw materials into a valuable end product. The materials can be anything from metals to crops, from labor to vision. Whether the process is the engineering and manufacturing of a product, or the splitting of large bulk orders into progressively smaller lots, that process's goal is to refine a profitable end product and get it into the hands of the end consumer.

Therefore, a successful producer must be able to manage input and output. He must know where he is in the chain of production, what his immediate customer wants, and what the end consumer wants. He must then understand the "raw" material which he is buying, its cost and value. He must be aware of the business politics of his vendors, and to what degree they can be trusted. Basically, to be a success, he must be a gatekeeper of value.

By contrast, a person who primarily fills the role of a consumer only has the need to identify value on one end of the equation. That is, he is "free" to buy what he needs at a price up to what he has or can get through credit. When he uses up his purchase, he must either buy more, or go without. It is a reactionary lifestyle, mostly dependent upon the fluctuations of the larger economy.

The written word is no different. A person who reads to simply pass the time, consumes the words with no potential for output. Mass fiction is little more than a time waster, as it leads to no exploration or personal discovery. It cannot spark conversation of any substance, and it does little to motivate the reader toward any action but turning the page.

A person who reads with a writer's mind (or intakes any media which he also creates), is inclined to seek value in the written word. He hopes to extract lessons, start discussions, and generally be inspired to break his writer's blocks. The greater he wishes his finished products to be, the greater the products he wishes to digest. If he is part of a collaborative effort, he is willing to let his own contribution be overruled by a better idea.

If we want for people to intake better information, it is a waste of our efforts to attempt to get everyone to digest the greatest works. There are those who already do read the Great Books, simply because they know the value in them, even if they have no specific outlet. Some understand the concept, and even read literature from time to time, but would be more inclined to dive into more challenging material if they saw a specific result. Others need a little more encouragement. They need media that is in between what appears to be the daunting challenge of Great Books, and what is the simple ease of genre-based "page turners" and mind-numbing TV.

Make no mistake, there is a need for the thinking-man's media. Even if it comes in the form of "easy" TV and entertaining trade paperbacks. We need people to produce this content, not seek to tear the system down.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain...and most fools do." - Dale Carnegie

FEATURED MEDIA:
How to Read a Book. By Mortimer J. Adler, founder of the Great Books of the Western World

Censorship

Censorship is a hotly contested, often misunderstood practice. One where the very use of its own related words gets people into such an emotional lather of indignation that no one seeks first to understand the meaning of the words. As words like "ban," "boycott," and "censor" seem to have different meanings to many. I know I've been guilty of proposing a "ban" on something when the word I should have said was "boycott."

Censorship is an official practice of using state powers to remove offensive material from media. The consequences of what might seem to be an act of goodwill, is that the responsibility to understand the difficult and ugly side of life is taken away from the people. Broadly applied, this has the same effect on the human mind that modern antiseptics have had on the human body. The more we are removed from any sort of hardship, the more susceptible we become to infections that get past our defenses—mentally or physically speaking. If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger.

My recent experience with censorship is not from so large an organization as the government, it is from the video game company, Nintendo. It seems that Nintendo has found it prudent to ban certain names from its online gaming network. Below is the email I sent to the company about the issue. I don't know for certain if my concerns are founded on actual company policy, or the irrational assumptions of gamers who have too much time to air complaints on forum, but I'm hoping to get to the bottom of this issue.

I am contacting you regarding the apparent banning of certain Mii names on the WFC. I was going to play Mario Kart Wii online with my son, Killien, using his Mii, but was confused to find that his Mii name was restricted. Upon further research, I could only find fairly angry comments on gamers' forums discussing the banning of the "Hitler" Mii. At least I can understand the rationale of banning Hitler, even if I don't agree with it. I'm not a racist and I'm not Jewish, but he's just a cartoon version of a historical figure—why the censorship?

I did also find several entries stating that names containing the word "kill" were banned. However, "Killien" is my three-year-old son's NAME. I'm not interested in changing his Mii name, and he is not old enough to understand why I have to. I don't mind explaining it to him, but I would like to hear the reason from the horse's mouth. Are you going to ban the name "Shelly" because it contains the word "hell"? Or what about the name "Dick"? Doesn't the need to explain these things in itself unnecessarily expose children to the uglier aspects of the world in which we live?

In any case, I found no information about bans at all on your official website, so I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and to assume that I am mistaken as a result of the rash assessment of other gamers. That being said, I would like to know how my son's name can be approved for the WFC. Or where I can officially complain about the ban, if in fact, censorship is Nintendo's official policy.

PHOTO CREDITS: ©Elizabeth Klueck

Sell It Not

"Buy the truth and sell it not; also wisdom, instruction, and understanding." (Proverbs 23:23)

This is a verse from the Bible that I have pondered for some time. In light of my theories about profitable stories through Truth in Fiction and my very own Amazon Store, some clarification is in order. I could go into great length about its context, quoting the original Greek, and such. But it is more upon my heart to share what it seems to say to me.

According to Seth Godin, in a recent blog post, "Art is a gift. You can sell the souvenir, the canvas, the recording... but the idea itself is free, and the generosity is a critical part of making art." To me, the Biblical commandment to "buy the truth" is a commandment to those who seek wisdom to volunteer a fair compensation. It is not the job of the wiseman to demand pay for his thoughts, but the responsibility of the seeker to offer.

Any man who would take art (even "free" art) without feeling the need to return the value, surely is in need of the wisdom it possesses. This reminds me of a story I once heard about a thief who broke into a Christian home.

The thief took what he could of value from the home. He was indiscriminant and irreverent. He even grabbed the family Bible, but seeing no value in it, he tore several of the fine paper pages from the book and discarded the rest.

As the story goes, his intention was to use the paper to roll his cigarettes. However, he wound up reading the pages, and was eventually led to Christ.

Regardless of your religious beliefs, would you agree that this fictitious scenario demonstrates the principle of the above verse? Perhaps we should be less concerned with our rights of copy and more concerned with the wisdom contained therein.

The value of capturing truth is in becoming an authority on truth. Should you desire wealth, or the fruits thereof, your honest endorsements will make you a millionaire.

FEATURED MEDIA:
Linchpin: Are You Indispensable? Seth Godin's newest book.

God is Green

Today, I saw a bumper sticker on a mid-sized SUV, which read "God is Green." Aside from the apparent hypocrisy in the context, I couldn't help but judge a few other things about the driver's thinking. First, I recognize that it is wrong to consider my judgements in any way correct. I could not have stopped the driver to ask if he or she was the one who applied the sticker (perhaps it was a son or daughter). I have no way of knowing why that person needed an SUV, perhaps they do have a lot of kids and frequent need to carry equipment for their work. Perhaps they own an organic food store, and judged the SUV as a necessity of business. I don't know.

However, the thoughts that scampered across my mind were as follows. First, "That's true." Second, "Who doesn't agree with that?" Third, "Why do they need to tell me?" Fourth, "Are they suggesting the typical action of government regulation?" I appreciate their sentiments, but the sticker did not send me to a website as is common with statements of an activist nature. If they were trying to do anything but label themselves as green-conscious (which is fine), then they left me with two options in response: pray about it (they invoked the name of God) or go the other "higher power" (the government).

But this article is more self-expository than it is revealing of that driver's intentions. What in my brain left we with those two choices as a knee-jerk response? See, upon further thought, I could look up a green nonprofit with which to get involved, or I could start one. I could also modify my own personal actions and business concerns to reflect my agreement with that statement. All these would collectively have a greater positive impact than that of government meddling, in my opinion.

My understanding is this: if most people believe that God is Green, or to put it another way, green practices are in sync with the nature of the physical world, then wouldn't such bumper stickers have the effect of reminding them to buy green? If so, doesn't that mean that the market favors those businesses that satisfy that demand? If you agree, then why does government need to regulate business into being green? We the people are through our spending habits, we need give no more taxes to the issue.

The answer, of course, is a lack of thinking. Or, more kindly put, a functional blind spot. Big media is the platform of the dominant political parties, both which now continue to "campaign" throughout their terms, rather than settling into non-partisan activities. The result of this is that we are held to believe, by any political discussion in all mainstream media, that our [legitimate] choices are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. I put the word "legitimate" in brackets because they'd rather not suggest there's even a poor third choice, and indeed they rarely do.

Now, I'm not writing this to suggest that you vote for a green party, but at least that's thinking outside the box. It is another choice, but it is still a government solution to a private problem. I submit that mainstream media is often an enforcer of limiting beliefs, if not its primary provider. This is especially true with network television, which relies upon revenue generated through the advertising of mediocre products (not cheap, but not necessarily the best). Subsequently, network television has an interest in hosting ideas that are also middle-of-the-road (not wrong, but also not completely right). They like to stick to big labels and stereotypes that are easy to identify by viewers. They fear if TV is too smart, their audience will dwindle.

Independents are thinking people, and are growing in number to the degree that they become disenchanted with the two party system championed by mainstream media. If God is Green, but God has no place in government, then ought we look elsewhere for the care of our environment?

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For more information on Independents in modern political times, check out the blog at The Center For Social Leadership.

"LOST: What Kate Does"

DISCLAIMER: In a previous post, I discussed the importance of ABC's "LOST." Therefore, I am beginning a series which briefly explores thoughts on the show with respect to FITmedia and Truth in Fiction. Being as the posts are philosophical in nature, I will try to keep story spoilers to a minimum. However, because many of the philosophical pillars are tied to critical events, it is impossible to discuss without some spoilers. For those of you not following the show, I hope that these posts will be worthwhile on their own merit, and should they inspire you to watch the show, that they will not have ruined the plot for you. You have been warned.

"What Kate Does"

It has been pointed out by executive producer, Damen Lindelof, that "like all good mythologies, it ultimately comes down to the battle between good and evil." The unique thing about LOST is the ambiguity with which it has always approached the concepts. For example, time and time again, we find ourselves wondering if we can trust Ben Linus, even though he is a self-confessed liar ("The Incident"). Also, despite their ominous nature, the Others maintain that they are the good-guys.

So let me ask the question that the show implies: how do you define good and evil. It seems to me that Jacob and his nemesis are on opposite sides of that fence. Though, despite the colors they wear, we are not clear what actions are attributed to which character. For example, when Ben was sent to kill Danielle Rousseau, but discovered baby Alex, he was concerned that the baby's death would not have been what Jacob wanted. So who gave the order? Was it Jacob, for the larger service of the Island? Is the Island worth the life of a baby? Is Jacob evil for ordering such a thing, or was it really Nemesis who gave the order? It is unanswerable, therefore, we cannot assume that the man in black is evil and Jacob is good. To make this ruling, one must define evil. Then one must identify its source.

Which brings me to the predominant philosophical theme of this episode: guilt. I don't exactly mean the feeling of guilt, but the fact of guilt. Who is responsible for a given action or its results? Jack had already taken responsibility for Sayid's death in "LA X," and maintains his guilt in this episode. The fact that Sayid is now alive, is a subject I will return to momentarily.

The episode centers around Kate, whose story is the very definition of guilt as a matter of fact. This episode, we discover that, like the Kate we know, "sideways" Kate is also under arrest for murder. Interestingly, she has a remorseless demeanor in spite of her guilt. This is another thing they still share. In previous flashbacks, we find that she feels justified in her actions ("What Kate Did"), and is shocked that others do not agree.

Sayid expressed remorse for his actions, when he pondered his impending death last episode. He reminds us of what he has done and asks where he will go in the afterlife. In contrast to Kate, Sayid does not seem to feel justified in his actions, but expects something terrible. We find he is partially right as made manifest by Dogen's "diagnosis," which Sayid considered torture despite the lack of questions asked. This harkens back to "The Brig" where the idea was presented that the Island is like Hell for those who deserve it.

That being said, James "Sawyer" Ford is enduring the emotional agony of having lost the woman he loves, Juliet Burke. He recants Sayid's crimes by way of saying it's not fair that a torturer gets a second chance. Kate tries to reason with Sawyer by saying it's her fault that she got on the sub ("The Incident"), preventing his escape. But Sawyer feels nothing for Kate, and again she seems suprised. Sawyer blames his own selfishness because he talked Juliet into staying on the Island. In a twist of irony, it was because he didn't want to be alone that he talked her into staying, and now he is alone.

We learn that Sayid's hell is possibly owed to the fact that he is "claimed" by some "darkness." It seems apparent that this refers to the Nemesis. This bears a similarity with the way characters are taken by the dark side of the force in the Star Wars Trilogy. However, unlike Star Wars, we learn that Claire has already been claimed. Archetypically, Claire has represented what is good and nurturing, even being a stand-in for an angel or the Virgin Mary in Charlie Pace's vision ("Fire + Water").

In the flashsideways, Kate takes Claire to the hospital, an action that is strange in the context of their recent interactions. It is as though the good nature of Claire awakens something human in the hardcore fugitive that is Kate. Claire helps her escape in return for her help. When Kate suggests she might be innocent of her crime, Claire seems to make a character judgement and replies to the effect that she could believe it. On-Island Claire seems to be the antithesis of what she has always been, unless we simply do not understand the nature of good. Very thought provoking.

Perhaps the Nemesis is the rightful inhabitant of the Island, righteously sworn to protect it by any means. I submit the story of the Ark of the Covenant from the Bible. When God told them not to touch it, He meant it. As the tale goes one of its carriers tried to stop it from falling over, and he was struck dead. Perhaps the Island is that important, and Jacob and all the people he brought are merely intruders.

Or perhaps we can take the Nemesis at face value, perhaps he is over stepping his bounds. Maybe he wishes to control the Island when it is not his place. To reference the Bible again, this is similar to the conflict between Satan and God, where the evil one was the highest of angels, but was cast out because he wanted to be God.

What do you think?

FEATURED MEDIA: Season 6 of LOST!