The Mechanics of the Status Quo

We are fighting not for the liberation of bodies, but for the liberation and subsequent independence of hearts and minds against a machine commanded by those who wish to create a rigid class-system which will benefit the interested parties' respective political and commercial interests, and which seeks to fortify those benefits against all development of merit in the lower classes.

This is a statement, which I believe sums up the whole of the battle of the mind being waged under our very noses. It is precisely the battle to which FITmedia seeks to introduce people, that we as a democratic society may learn to hold our own against such an attempt. There are many more worthy organizations already engaged in the creation of truthful media—especially in books and blogs. However, support is lacking for the cause of changing large-scale media (such as television series) from a firmly entrenched propagator of the status quo into the intellectually challenging liberal art, which it can and should be.

Too many of us see the world through the "either/or" filter given to us by political pundits. Every societal issue is increasingly judged as either Liberal or Conservative. This and that, us and them. No matter what we are encouraged to think of ourselves and our parties (political or otherwise) as being in the right, while those in opposition to us are totally in the wrong.

Neither are we aware, nor do we question, the source of our convictions. Often we find that at some point in our lives we bought into an ideology, given to us in total by the media we individually selected on preference. Hunting or shooting enthusiasts have an interest in the NRA, and are therefore sold into the hands of the Republican Party. Animal activists have an interest in PETA, and are therefore sold into the hands of the Democrats.

Of course, these are stereotypes or broad, sweeping generalizations, and that is precisely my point. In this case A ≠ B ≠ C, or for the symbolically disinclined, the path of association is a contrived one—largely invented by mainstream media in an effort to market to the greatest number of interested persons. It is the opinion of the people running the machine that if you have a particular interest, then you must agree completely with the most general and largest organization that supports that interest. It follows along the same faulty line of reasoning that you would then fit into the political party which promotes that organization's interests.

The devastating thing to our society is that, largely, those in control are correct—at least, based upon the results of their actions. Our total experience in life (from education to religion to the media) rarely if ever encourages us to understand those with opposing opinions to our own. Not to criticize any one site, but we are bombarded by "smart" marketing, which tries to tell us what we would like, based upon what we already bought. However, the consequences of this is a tendency for people to live in a world of their own design—unknowingly shielded from the challenge of differing opinions. They become close-minded, almost through no fault of their own, but in their ignorance of the big picture they play the hand that is dealt them.

The two party system is irrelevant. Both sides have their strengths and weaknesses. Both are right and both are wrong. The true split lies not in the smoke and mirrors of bipartisan issues, but in the difference between those who seek to create change, and those who seek to avoid change. The former group sees the future as bright. They want to develop themselves, create abundance, and help others to do the same. The latter group sees only past failures and future risks. They seek only to develop their personal comfort, while using what power they can obtain to show mercy to the "helpless" individuals whom they favor (mostly for selfish reasons).

If you and I are to rise in life (whatever our current stations), we must develop ourselves, become truly open minded, and gain a peaceful heart. We must seek out the challenge of opposing information, taking upon ourselves the responsibility of discerning the truth. We must understand that to be truly successful as an originator or distributor of media, that media must be of the highest level of truth—its very gravity creating stability, viral spread, and genuine change.

"LOST: The End"

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 End

There is so much to say now that LOST is officially finished. In fact, I hardly know where to begin. Of course, now that the series is closed, a serious discussion of its philosophical implications can truly be undertaken. I plan to periodically post (though not yet on a set interval) observations on the series with regard to everyday life, just as I do with other media. I also plan to revisit the unanswered questions post in the near future.

For this post, however, a standard (yet solemnly respectful) treatment is in order.

THE END

Two words that are at times either a relief or a time of mourning. A time of new beginnings or a time of utter despair. As many of you know, I had the distinct privilege of watching the Finale at the State Theatre in downtown Traverse City, MI. Until then, the largest group I had ever watched the show with was 6 or 7 people. Throughout the show, the crowd cheered at the crucial appearances of various characters—especially when Frank turned out to still be alive—and tears where shed over the touching moments.

The energy of the crowd was amazing. In dispersing from the theatre, the crowd that gathered outside was very reminiscent of the characters' interactions in the church scene. It's not so much that we will never see our fellow LOST fanatics again, but it felt like it would be different. To me, it felt like graduating high school—for better or worse, you'll never have that group together again. I will see my friends again, but our respective relationships with the characters on the screen are forever frozen—never to develop further.

I wasn't chosen, I volunteered.

It had long been apparent that Jack was the logical choice to take Jacob's place—a fact that was mocked by the Man in Black. For all Jack's new post represented, the questions it answered were disappointingly few. The vague concept of "rules" given to us by the young Man in Black in "Across the Sea," stand as the only explanation for many of the loose ends and odd powers which Jacob and/or the Island has.

One thing seems to circumvent Jacob's fixed rules: that the protector of the Island must be one who does not want the position. The Island represents power. A person who desires the position is a person who will be tempted to abuse that power. Unlike the One Ring from the Lord of the Rings, the Island is not inherently evil. It is only the influence of someone like the Man in Black that can corrupt another man. In effect, it is more like "the Force" from the Star Wars universe, with its light and dark sides—a comparison the creators have made personally.

Jacob remained the protector of Island for as long as he did because he did not abuse the power, such as the Man in Black was seeking to do. Jack also sought to use the power, as Widmore had apparently intended, to kill the Man in Black—who was impervious to harm until Desmond pulled the "key." This shared intention ended poorly for all three men. Widmore did not even fulfill whatever purpose Jacob assigned him to. The Man in Black, though correct about destroying the Island, was surprised to find that he was mortal once again.

Jack was mortally wounded by the Man in Black during their brawl on the cliffs. Ultimately, he would give his life for the Island and for his friends who had yet to escape it, an action which is widely regarded in our culture to be the greatest expression of love. He saved Desmond, taking his place in the pool of light after transferring his job to Hurley—the most reluctant, but arguably best-suited candidate. (Kudos to my wife for calling that one!) Ben suggested to Hurley that he might run the Island however he wants, with the aim of helping people as his main philosophical objective.

Prior to the church scene, Hurley commends Ben for having been a great right-hand man. Ben, in turn, tells Hurley the same. This implies that their "reign" was long and successful—a fact which, in reality, would conflict with the old axiom, "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely." That being said, one could argue that one does not really have absolute power if he gives it away, which Hurley would have.

Time has no meaning in this place.

The church scene that summed up the great mystery of the flash-sideways has to be the most creative solution to the ending of a story, even if it does feel a little contrived. By explaining that the most important time in the characters' lives were the times told in the series, the writers simultaneously provided us with a cohesive, happy ending; a definitive death of the main character; and the potential continuation of the survivors. "The End" delivers us our pick of ends while allowing us room to speculate about the continued lives and eventual deaths of those whose stories would have ended in ellipses...

FEATURED MEDIA: Preorder the final season!
The Lord of the Rings - The epic fantasy by JRR Tolkien, which defined an entire genre of books, and was masterfully reconstituted in movie form by Peter Jackson. It is an immersive tale of love and war for the fate of all mankind.
Star Wars Trilogy - The followers of an ancient order utilize a power known as "the force" to affects the ends of good or evil. Those who fight for the good side, struggle to save the galaxy from a tyrannical Empire, whose intentions are dark.

LOST: The Unanswered Questions

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 Unanswered Questions

And now for the Questions... This is by no means a complete list, nor do I want it to be. I hope to include some of the more obscure, but significant (I think) loose ends which will hopefully be tied up in the finale. Enjoy and discuss...

What happened to Christian Shephard's body?

In the original timeline, Christian's body apparently furnishes the Man in Black with a new form ("The Last Recruit")—unless he's lying. Assuming the body was in the coffin on the plane, this loose end is easily justified by assuming it was moved by the Man in Black in order to fool Jack ("White Rabbit"). However, without the influence of the Island, we have no such justification in the flash-sideways.

Was every appearance of Christian (after his death) actually the Man in Black?

Assuming the MiB answered Jack truthfully, we know for certain that the suit-wearing Christian was him. After the Ajira crash, "Locke" appeared wearing a suit, but later changed into hiking gear. Christian seems to have done the same. Claire confirms that the Christian who talked to John Locke in the cabin ("Cabin Fever") was the MiB. However, the Christian who dismisses Michael on the freighter and especially the Christian who greets Jack at the hospital after they return from the Island violates the apparent rules about the MiB not leaving the Island. For a normal TV show, Jack could have been simply hallucinating, but for LOST that is a significant loose end.

Who were the two men in the cabin?

When Hurley falls behind the group ("The Beginning of the End"), he suddenly stumbles upon Horace's cabin, which is out of place. Peering through the window, he sees Christian seated in a chair. Suddenly, another face comes into view. If Christian is an incarnation of the MiB, was this second man supposed to be Jacob? Or is there another explanation? My first thought was it looked like Locke, who subsequently finds Hurley after the cabin disappears. However, Hurley's later question regarding where the cabin is seems to catch Locke off guard, confirming that he wasn't the other man.

What exactly happened when Ben and Locke first visited the cabin together?

Ben has not only confirmed that he was pretending about seeing Jacob in the chair ("The Man Behind the Curtain"), but also that he did not expect things to start flying around. I believe that Executive Producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse confirmed in the podcast that the man who appeared briefly in the chair was Jacob. Perhaps I'm wrong, or perhaps they renegotiated that particular element due to story changes. In any case, I re-pose the question: who was that? And why did he say "help me"?

What exactly was the purpose of the ring of ash around the cabin?

When Ben and Locke first visit the cabin, Ben steps carefully over the ash, while Locke stoops to examine it. Neither of them seem to have caused the break in the ash line found by Ilana in Season 5, even after fleeing the disturbance in the cabin. We know that the ring of ash is a barrier to the MiB, but it is unclear whether it was intended to keep him out or in the cabin. Since it seemed undisturbed, we could surmise that it was to trap in whatever caused the disturbance, but it could not have been the MiB because we had seen or heard the Smoke Monster elsewhere on the Island many times by then. Perhaps it was a safe-haven for ghosts.

How do the whispers teleport people and things?

Or are the whispers merely ghosts. It seems that the cabin was physically moved from its former location to where Hurley found it, and it seems that Harper physically appeared to Juliet ("The Other Woman")—though we don't know whether she is alive or dead. Ben warns young Rousseau to "run the other way" when she hears whispers ("Dead is Dead"), which suggests there is something to see for people other than Hurley. She was also described as "insane," so perhaps she was able to see what others could not.

What is the deal with the pallet drop?

At the end of "Lockdown," a pallet of food is discovered in the jungle. A parachute suggests that it was dropped by a plane, though no plane was sighted. Given what we know about the Island's physical properties, there might not be much explanation needed. What is more curious is why was it sent? The Dharma Initiative seems to be entirely out of commission (except for Desmond in the Swan Station), so the more interesting question is who sent it?

Who is Dave?

In the episode "Dave," the pallet of food seems to trigger a psychotic episode in Hurley who sees a bald man in a bath robe and chases him through the jungle. It turns out he's Dave, Hurley's best friend from the mental hospital—only he's apparently an imaginary friend. It is revealed that Libby was also in the mental hospital with Hurley. When she gives Desmond the sailboat ("Live Together, Die Alone") she reveals that her dead husband's name is David. Is it possible that Dave is the ghost of Libby husband? (Also, as a side note, Desmond's middle name is David and Jack's son in the flash-sideways is David).

What was Libby doing in Sydney?

In the flash-sideways, Hurley meets Libby for the first time while she is on a "field trip" with other patients from the mental hospital. Therefore, she was not on Oceanic 815 in that timeline. Since she was also in the mental hospital in the original timeline, the question is what caused her to check out and go to Sydney? Was she stalking Hurley? Or is there more to the story?

Who were the people Sayid killed?

Ben claims they were Widmore's people, who needed to be killed to protect those who remained on the Island. Since basically no more has been said on this matter since Sayid finished his task, we can likely assume that their link to Widmore is real. Whether or not killing them actually protected the Island is therefore a matter both of Widmore's and Ben's respective intentions for the Island.

Who is "R.G."?

In "The Economist," Sayid woos a woman named Elsa with the intention of getting at and killing her employer, an economist who works "in emerging markets." Since his name was on the hit list and Sayid claimed to have killed everyone on it ("He's Our You"), the economist is likely dead (at least in the original timeline). When Sayid reveals his intentions, we discover that Elsa was lying about her job. After Sayid kills her, he notices a metal bracelet on her wrist, which is the same as one Naomi is wearing on the Island. Inside is the inscription, "N, I'll always be with you. R.G." Assuming Elsa's bracelet said something similar, these two women seem to be linked to a mysterious third party.

What is the deal with Ray Shephard?

The writers of LOST are not in the habit of doing anything without double meaning or deeper significance. In "316," Jack is told that his grandfather, Ray, had again tried to escape from the retirement home were he resides. Ray claims he will one day escape, saying, "They won't ever find me, either." After a short talk, Jack finds a pair of his father's shoes the bags Ray packed—a belonging he needed as per Eloise's request. We are meant to think this is the only purpose of this scene and that his eventual escape to a place he cannot be found is merely an allusion to Jack's future. However, this seems far to elaborate a set up for merely this. I believe Ray will figure into the finale, or at least the writers were intending to use him for such a purpose. I hope they do.

What is the significance of the number 32 and its relationship the number 42?

We are all used to the number 42 as the last number in the sequence which appears throughout the show, eventually being revealed as corresponding to Jacob's candidates—the number 42 in particular referring to Sun and/or Jin. However, when Hurley and Miles take Dr. Chang to the Swan worksite, Hurley sees two men stamping the numbers into the Hatch. The one who is reading off the numbers says the last one is smudged before deciding it says "42." When Desmond fled the Hatch and Locke took over his job, the first sequence of numbers he entered ended in "32" before Jack corrected him. It is interesting to note that 32 is a reversal of "23"—Jack's number. Miles asked Ben for $3.2 million dollars, to which Ben responded, "Why not 3.3 or 3.4?" Once off the Island, Ben goes to the butcher's shop to drop off Locke's body. When he takes a number, it is "342"—"32" interrupted by "4" (Locke's number).

What caused the condition where pregnant women die on the Island?

Much of Season 3 labored over this point, though Richard pointed out to Locke that it was a lesser problem meant, by Ben, to distract his people. It is likely that somewhere between Ben's healing at the Temple and the Incident, this problem arose. It did not effect Amy Goodspeed, who gave birth to Ethan in 1977.

FEATURED MEDIA: Preorder the final season!

"LOST: What They Died For"

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 They Died For"

Sorry for the lateness of this post. For this penultimate episode, I wanted to switch it up a bit. Usually I attempt an analysis of implications and significance, in which I take a shot in the dark about the show's core mythology and its relevence to modern life. In this post, I'd like to bring up some unanswered questions about the series, which I think are central to the show.

But First... A Brief Analysis

I thought Jacob avoided the question when Kate asked him "what they died for"—referring mostly to Sun and Jin. He proceeded to explain to her and the other remaining candidates that he did not pull them out of a happy existence—that they were flawed, they were alone. The Kwons, at least, had each other—for better or for worse.

Perhaps they died for no other reason than to prove Jin's promise that he would never leave her again. However, it seems like they died senselessly at the hands of the Man in Black—not directly, of course, but via Sawyer, who expressed his guilt only to be reassured by Jack that he was merely a pawn. According to Jack, the Man in Black could not kill them himself directly because it was against the rules.

What power is it that protects them from harm? Ben credits the Island itself as "being done with her" when Ilana dies ("Everybody Loves Hugo"), suggesting that the Island itself was protecting her. However, Michael is dismissed by Christian before the freighter explosion kills him ("There's No Place Like Home"). Current evidence all but proves this is the Man in Black.

Both Ilana and Michael carried with them an unfinished purpose. This purpose seemed to keep them safe, but—like the amulet of protection from the Sandman series—allowed the next most convenient death sentence to be enacted once the purpose was fulfilled.

Sayid died to save those that survived, but what of Frank and Richard? What final purpose did they fulfill, or are they still alive? If Frank is truly dead, then isn't the plane rendered useless? However, it is interesting to note that Locke said he had gotten his pilot's license in the flash-sideways ("The Candidate").

It was no surprise to me that Jack accepted Jacob's position as his purpose fulfilled. As Jacob literally passes the torch, we wonder just how much changed for Jack in that instant. The survivors in Jack's camp are tasked with killing the Man in Black—something no one is certain is possible.

Through Jack, we will hopefully learn a host of secrets in the finale, like how Jacob left the Island to tell Widmore about the "error of his ways," and what "exact purpose" Widmore was to be fulfilling before Ben killed him. What exactly was the error—the mercenaries, the freighter, or the ideology that inspired the mission? Was his purpose at long last to inform the Man in Black about Desmond? Because that was the last thing he did.

And speaking of Desmond, I can think of no other solution to these questions than that he is able to cause the Oceanic passengers in the flash-sideways to travel to the original timeline—in body or consciousness. Widmore seemed surprised at Desmond's sudden cooperation ("Happily Ever After"), which suggests this was not part of the "failsafe" he had in mind.

If this failsafe had something to do with destroying the Island—like blowing the dam at the Hatch ("Live Together, Die Alone"), then how is that not a threat but an asset to the Man in Black? Perhaps he expects to be transported off the Island the same way Locke was apparently transported out of the Hatch ("Further Instructions").

To be continued...

FEATURED MEDIA: Preorder the Final Season of LOST! 

The Sandman - This ten-volume graphic novel epic by Neil Gaiman follows Dream—one of the Endless beings—from his capture by occultists through his history to his "end" where he is replaced by a new Dream. The Sandman is to comics what LOST is to television.

What If You Got Paid?

There was a time when people were self-sufficient. They worked only when there was work to be done. The rest of the time they spent with their families and friends. Now we have debt and other financial obligations. We have to work to meet these obligations. We do it begrudgingly because somewhere inside we know that most of these obligations could have been avoided with better information and planning.

The trouble is stuff—consumer stuff. None of this stuff amounts to anything really, but the people who created the stuff told us a good story and we bought it. Good for them—they have to eat too—though this raises difficult ethical questions, which I will not discuss here. Suffice it to say, some people create stuff and other people buy the stuff, but it's a house of cards built out of hype, status, and comfort.

TV media creators (for one example) want you to watch their shows so that you'll view the commercials. The commercials drive sales for the businesses being marketed. Increased sales means increased value, which results in more revenue being paid to the media creators. But what does the audience get?

Sadly, the answer is usually a punch in the gut or a knife to the kidney. Media and marketing deliver empty entertainment, funded by useless stuff, financed by shady credit companies who pretend to be your friend. What's in your wallet? Media promotes the lifestyle, while marketing sells the tools to pretend.

Here's the point: there's a lot of money being transferred here, but the viewers don't see a dime that isn't coming out of their pockets. So if they want us to watch their stories, chase a lifestyle, and buy the accessories of that lifestyle, then why not cut us in on the money, too?

What if you got paid to do what they wanted you to do? You watch a show or a movie, you get three friends to watch it with you. How much is that worth to the creators?

A lot.

FEATURED MEDIA: Wall-E - Another great movie from Pixar! 700 years in the future, Earth is overrun by the trash created from its consumer culture. The people have flown to outer space aboard space cruise ships. A lone robot performs his duty of cleaning up the planet until he finds himself on a journey to return the people to the newly sustainable Earth.

The Underground is the New Mainstream

Companies have an age. It isn't measured in the years they've been in operation. It isn't measured by the age of any of its employees, partners, or shareholders. It has little to do with the customer base, though it can be used as a gauge of its effects. And last, but not least, a greater age is usually not a good thing—at least, not anymore.

I submit the following colloquialisms: "You're only as old as you feel," and "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." Are you starting to catch my drift?

There was a time when older was better. More experience meant a better product, more customer satisfaction, a broader, livelier media image. Those days are gone. Industry is saturated. Media is saturated. Yet the system still values seniority. The ones that float to the top are the biggest and most bureaucratic, while the companies and people that matter are pushed out of the mainstream.

Nevertheless, communication is booming, and those who are looking for innovation are looking to smaller sources. Social leaders with the ability to create media and products that resonate with a smaller, but more invested crowd, are creating a mosaic that is hidden behind the obviously smoke and mirrors of big media. The underground is the new mainstream.

Companies that are young-at-heart—enthusiastic and a little naive—feel so much more like home than a mahogany boardroom, even if it does have 150 years of experience. So what? The best of the best is found in books, and FIT media creators are fighting to put truth out there in the mainstream.

Forget the stream, the riverbed is changing.

FEATURED MEDIA: Launching a Leadership Revolution - The groundbreaking book about servant leadership in the information age.

Heart of a Child, Mind of a Scholar

What we need is less fear. We have been trained by the media, by society, by school that failure is bad. We foster a catalogue of these failures and their supposed, intrinsic, negative value. In a word, we "regret" our lives away. The older we get and the more we listen to what comes our way without thought of implications, the more fearful we become of regrets.

You see, most of us don't really fear failure. We don't like failure. We want to avoid failure. However, the amygdala (what Seth Godin calls "the lizard brain") fears pain in its most general sense. In "caveman" times it was there to keep us alive, but in modern man, it largely causes us to shy away from abstract discomforts. So we fear not the failure, but the baggage or stigma of that failure. We fear regrets.

Young children don't know what regrets are. They lack the social conditioning that produces fear of the past. Their fears are useful, like fear of the stove, or fear of a bully. They don't fear social interactions that are not (in their eyes) overtly threatening. However, the thing that makes children magical creators, is the lack of the very thing that is necessary to be productive—experience.

The challenge is maintaining the heart of a child while gaining the knowledge of a scholar. Knowledge brings both fears and comforts. Those who are inundated with fears seek only their own comfort, while those who are comfortable shut out the knowledge that brings risk and fear. We live in a world of stone-headed economic realists, and starry-eyed "follow-your-heart" idealists.

Neither are in touch with reality. Until we can bridge the gap between these two—develop individuals that are both—we will continue to have a degenerative state of war in our public consciousness.

FEATURED MEDIA: The Anatomy of Peace - This is a remarkable book which brings to light the deepest issue behind all human conflict: the heart at war. When our "way of being" toward others is not founded on a heart at peace, we create conflict in all of our relationships. The challenge is accepting that we are to blame for many of our problems, but we also hold the solution.