"LOST: Lighthouse"

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.

"Lighthouse"

Perhaps, I'm just not seeing it this week, but I feel like this episode is rather devoid of philosophical discussion. It's not that I would call it a bad episode, but it feels more like the span of a bridge which is farthest from its supports. It is interesting to note that a friend of mine, who I regularly go over the episodes with, felt this was the worst episode of the season so far. For us to share a similar feeling about an episode which seems to lack depth, is evidence that it lacks "Truth in Fiction." There is great content, revealing several useful connections, but it does not ask deep questions or give any answers which we did not already suspect. The most surprising element was learning that Jack has a son, David, in the flash-sideways timeline.

Through this relationship, we learn something deeper about Jack's relationship with his father. Jack was apparently terrified of his father, who had at least once told him "you just don't have what it takes" ("White Rabbit"). Despite David's distant, teenager-like attitude, Jack is persistent in his attempt to communicate. He says he just wants to be a part of David's life. It turns out that David is afraid for his dad to see him fail. Jack admits his love for his son, saying he can never fail in his eyes. Simply getting the issue out in the open, despite difficult emotions, has a healing effect.

This resolution to the flash-sideways seems to be in keeping with the sense that conflicts are quickly righted in the absence of the Island's influence. Which therefore furthers, in my mind, a growing sense that the Island is somehow malevolent. Perhaps the Man in Black does not recognize the Island as in need of protection because it is not the Island that Jacob and his followers are protecting from the outside world, but the outside world that they are protecting from the Island. Then again, if Jacob was supposed to be protecting the outside world, he either wasn't doing a very good job, was losing to the Man in Black, or was sacrificing his own "Queen" for a checkmate.

All the same, we lack enough solid information about the Island's original inhabitants to examine the lighthouse, which Jack and Hurley visit after another "uncharacteristic" step into leadership by Hurley. It appears that Jacob has been using it to watch certain people. We again see the names of the "candidates," but learn no more of their significance. Jack's lack of emotional intelligence once again closes doors by which we could have learned something. And Hurley is left bewildered in the presence of Jacob, who seems to have expected this chain of events to unfold.

The only significance I can draw from these events presently are the larger themes of leadership and destiny. Jacob tells Hurley that some people can just be told what needs to be done—demonstrating that Hurley is both a good leader (he was effective) and a good follower (he did what he was told on faith)—while he says other need to "stare out at the ocean for a while," referring to his understanding that no one can tell Jack what to do, he must find it on his own. This hearkens back to Locke's advice that "a leader can't lead, unless he knows where he's going." ("White Rabbit")

We also visit Claire's camp, which is eerily reminiscent of a cross between Rousseau's beach camp in "Dead is Dead" and her underground hideout in "Solitary." She helps Jin by sewing up his injuries caused by a bear-trap she set (also reminiscent of Rousseau). She asks Jin if he is still her friend with a subtly ominous air, as if treatment of his wounds (and possibly his life) depend on the correct answer.

In addition to Jin, she is holding one of the Others captive, who she plans to torture in order to gain information about the whereabouts of her son, Aaron. In what I can only conclude is a contrast between good and evil, Jin emphatically tells Claire that Kate took Aaron off the Island, temporarily saving her captive's life. Claire then kills the captive, seemingly out of spite. There is a stark difference between the good-natured flash-sideways Claire from "What Kate Does" (see blog post) and this apparent demon-fellow, whose actions seem to indicate the nature of her friend, the Man in Black.

So the battle lines seem to be between a dark-humored (if not wholly evil) Man in Black, who is "claiming" certain pieces on a cosmic chess board, with no apparent concern for life or death; and a solemn but confident Jacob, whose apparent manipulation of "candidates" has cost many lives on the path to some greater purpose. The question is, who is really the evil one? Does Jacob's purpose justify the loss of lives? If not, then is the Man in Black—and not Jacob—ultimately responsible for the deaths?

FEATURED MEDIA: Pre-order Season 6 of LOST!

Monetize the Starving Artist

I've found, through personal experience, that it is considerably difficult to balance the need to express one's art with the need to sustain oneself financially. Because one's art is entangled with one's sense of purpose, the artist can fall into the trap of self-satisfaction and the sacrifice of all else. In other words, it is easier to relegate one's art to the realm of the hobby and spend only a minimal amount of time bringing in a salary. This is, of course, the old concept of the "starving artist."

Since this type of person is typically not uneducated, they are not trapped in low-income jobs due to lack of ability, but lack of applicable desire. They are independent in spirit, and would rather not exhaust their mental and physical faculties on anything but their art. For the same reason, they do not want to subject their independent expression to the arbitrary restrictions of a boss, who generally has other motives than the perfection of his constituent's art.

And so, there is an army of "unproductive" geniuses, who are not so much doing the wrong thing, as doing it the wrong way. The fundamental problem is the assumption that one has to do what he does for someone in order to receive compensation, or if he wants to avoid the consent of a third-party, he must do something else for someone. That "something else" will naturally never get the artist's best efforts, which are saved for the art—or, as in the former event, his best efforts are not appreciated.

Most people are stuck in an employee-mentality, which means they look to one or two sources for their income. Even a self-employed person or freelancer can fall into a rut for their income; settling into working with one or two big contractors. Especially if their job is not their passion, this is the easier route. Ultimately, this system prevents a person from doing what they love to do and being adequately compensated for their subsequent skill in that area.

The concept they are unaware of is the idea of "monetizing" their art, or more liberating, monetizing their lives. To put it simply, good art has a way of attracting and retaining a crowd simply by virtue of its quality. So too, does the artist creating the art. An artist who demonstrates mastery in art, is a person who has achieved some level of mastery over his life. Therefore, his opinion about the value of things matters. If he recommends a movie or a book, that means it's worth seeing or reading. If he uses a product, it is likely to be world class.

Traditional media and marketing know this, but have abused this with the impersonal hand of mass communication technology. The reality is, we all feel more comfortable buying something from someone we can know and trust. What I speak of is not sales, but endorsements. Most people only think this is open to the Olympic Gold Medalists and other athletic heroes, but that's not true. Look at any website that has something for sale, many have commission opportunities for independent individuals who can gather a loyal crowd. Take the Amazon Associates program, which I use.

Never fear, it may take time, but the degree to which your art grows in quality is the degree to which you gather followers, especially with today's social networking opportunities. The degree to which you gather followers of your high art is the degree to which your endorsements of other people's art is valuable to them.

FEATURED MEDIA: "(500) Days of Summer" - A young man who dreams of being an architect, is trapped in a dead-end job as an illustrator for a greeting card company. At his job, he meets a girl named Summer, who proves to be a sort of muse. As the movie says, this is not a love story.

Emotional Attachment

Recently my son destroyed one of his toys. I highlight the word "destroyed" because that is not really what happened, but that is how my brain described it. What he did was tear most of the decals off a toy car parking deck. Its basic functions still remained in tact, and no plastic was bent or broken. What was really destroyed was my efforts. See, I kept him at bay on Christmas while I painstakingly put the sticker on. So for him to remove them was a bit of an emotional injury for me.

Which brings me to my topic: "emotional attachment" of this kind is unhealthy and ought to be exercised from a free thinking person's mind. This isn't to say that emotions are not valid, but a good rule of thumb would be that emotions are for people, not things. Two exceptions of polar opposites would be a passion for the protection of an important historical artifact, or the desensitization of prison guards toward the pleas of convicted criminals. However, generally speaking emotional involvement with the inanimate is a handicap.

Take the movie, Lars and the Real Girl, for example. I highly recommend this film to anyone interesting in having their perspectives challenged. It is not to say that this is a difficult film to watch, its very enjoyable, but it is to say that it goes down a very unexpected path.

Lars Lindstrom is, to a painful degree, very shy. He has almost no social life outside of this brother and sister-in-law, who's garage he lives in. So they are surprised to find he has met the girl of his dreams. However, to this social hermit, the "girl of his dreams" turns out to be a sex doll he ordered on the internet named Bianca.

Here's where the story heads down the road less travelled. Lars is not interested in sex, but a deep, meaningful relationship. Since he doesn't know how to interact with real girls, it seems his only option is to invent one. Because the people of his small town care for him, they decide to play along. The local doctor is also a psychiatrist, and pretends that Bianca has a rare condition that must be treated regularly. During this time, she is able to talk to Lars about his strange attachment.

I won't go any further into the story except to say that it is a truly heartwarming story of healing—one that is distinctive and edgy enough not to be sappy. For me, it provoked a lot of thought about how we assign a certain spirit to inanimate objects, as well as pets, which they really don't possess. Usually, this is a harmless practice from childhood imagination, which can be beneficial, as it was for Lars. Though such attachments can be abused.

To borrow the plot of this movie for analogy's sake, what if the doctor had insisted that Bianca needed a certain expensive prescription (one that paid a high commission). Or what if a local car salesman used Bianca's condition to sell Lars a new car? What if Lars decided Bianca needed a credit card so she could get the high-fashion she needed?

This is precisely the sort of thing that unscrupulous advertisers seek to do: tap your emotional weak spots in order to push on you a product which you really don't need. FITmedia seeks to create writers, producers, and distributors who understand that the only products that should sponsor true art are truly artful products. Whether it be scientifically advanced food products, or high-quality literary entertainment.

FEATURED MEDIA: "Lars and the Real Girl" - The story of a meaningful relationship with a sex doll.

Value and War

In the spirit of free thought, I want to discuss a controversial subject. Many times, certain subjects which require mature examination do not get the analysis they deserve. As a society, we tend to grab ahold of generalized judgments in lieu of thinking for ourselves, especially were much thought has already been done. René Decartes is said to have written his treatise on human emotions "as if no one had written on these matters before." However, it is vital to the free thinking man or woman to examine difficult ethical dilemmas from an objective standpoint, even if a heart-felt response ultimately is deemed proper.

It came to me to ask the question, what is wrong with war profiteering? Actually, the term "war profiteering" is by definition, wrong. The phrase embodies the concept of abusing power as the result of limited commodities and limited competition over who is providing those commodities. In effect, it constitutes theft from an already overwrought people. That is why it is wrong.

However, several things get conveniently labeled "war profiteering" which may not be wrong. Basically, free nations produce goods through private enterprise. This means that the munitions, rations, clothing, and other supplies are often manufactured privately and sold to the military at a profit. This is not, inherently, "war profiteering." It is merely profit made in a time of war. If a nation (or alliance of nations) is fighting for freedom against foreign oppressors such as Nazi Germany in WWII, then it makes little sense for any nation to strip its own citizens of business freedoms. Those entrepreneurs have more at stake than most if the freedom of the nation disappears—be it from without or within.

What does create a problem is when a dishonest third-party shows up on the scene to take advantage of the situation. As with Oskar Schindler in "Schindler's List." Schindler acquires an enamelware factory in Poland after the German invasion, staffing it with Jewish workers, who represent free labor. Based on a true story, he made a lot of profit on the business, but ultimately began helping the Jewish people escape the death camps through employment at his shop. In a famous scene, Schindler lamented that he could have found more money to save more lives. The profits he extracted ultimately served the higher purpose of saving nearly 1200 lives.

We need not forget the power of the most horrific events to warm even the coldest heart. To assume that such profits never produce guilt even when guilt is deserved is to disregard the moveable heart of man. To be sure, one can avoid seeing the results of his work, but can anyone truly avoid knowing the results of his work? Is it possible at all to profit in ignorance of the end results? I think not.

FEATURED MEDIA
"Schindler's List" - The true story of a Nazi business man turned hero.

Media Vegetable

The partnership between media and marketing has led the unscrupulous purveyors to take unfair advantage of the consumer. With today's hectic lifestyle, shrinking incomes, and downsizing employment, it's no wonder that people want to "veg out." I mean, who wants to think after 5 o'clock? Most people's brains are spent—not on important, life-shaping matters—but on menial, repetitive tasks. These tasks do not stimulate new ideas, but merely tie up bandwidth in the brain.

So after getting chewed out for showing up 3 minutes late to a job you hate on a Monday morning, you make your way to your work station. Here you will be worked by your superiors like some sort of mechanical device—as a part of the machine you might be standing or sitting in front of. Perfection is expected, but speed is a priority. Criticism and irrational demands replace the real human contact of teamwork. Indeed, you have likely been chewed out for spending too much time "socializing."

So you go home to chores of one kind or another. Work doesn't stop because you go home. You're too stressed out about today or tomorrow or the next presentation to think about thirty years from now when today's habits compound to cause your death by heart disease. So you order a pizza, easy right? Of course you get diet soda with it, because somewhere [on a commercial] you heard that aspartame is healthier than sugar.

Then you plop down in front of the TV, physically, mentally, and spiritually exhausted. You watch what's easy to watch. Plot-driven, formulaic, escapist programming. Shows interlaced with car commercials, prescription drug ads, credit cards, and insurance—anything to make your life easier. And because you are emotionally vulnerable, and in no shape to think about what you're watching, you get suckered into buying.

All that said, you are not the victim, but an accomplice to your own destruction. Henry Ford said, "Thinking is the hardest job there is, that is why so few people engage in it." It's true, but it's still your responsibility. Who will protect your most valuable asset—your mind—if not you? What will protect your body and your life if not your mind? Certainly not the large organizations, most of whom are on a track that makes your day job harder (so they can cut costs), and your nightlife dumber (so they can sell you the fix).

So how about it? Ready to begin thinking through your intellectual diet, or are you going to die of cronic consumerism?

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.