Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

science or spiritual? (spoilers for series finale)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cor
    replied
    The last episode completely and utterly destroyed what was a great series. No other way to put it. and its not about science or spirituality, its about answering mystery's or not answering mystery's -and they did NETHER.

    I felt like the best part of the story, the bit that had all the answers - or at least the understanding happened directly between the last few episodes.. its like watching a Sherlock Holmes film and just before he figures every thing out *poof* he's suddenly in heaven with all the friends he lost along the way.. and i have to say WHO CARES? if you believe in that then there was no need to show it cause you believe it happened anyway, if you don't then its just a few episodes of gibberish.. but ether way it is NOT the conclusion of the story, that bit was skipped over for some unbelievably stupid reason.

    Its been over six months since i watched that final episode and no matter how much i liked the rest of the series i can't bring myself to watch it again, its like knowing you have the first half of a good film but with no conclusions why the h3ll would you want to watch it more than once?

    Leave a comment:


  • Infinite-Possibilities
    replied
    I'm not saying I think the ending was good, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that the island (and the show) was about the supernatural from the the first few seasons. So Personally I see being disappointed about that particular aspect of it as sort of strange. How did you not see it coming?

    Leave a comment:


  • kmiller1610
    replied
    I'm nearing the end of my re-watch of the show and am really enjoying it. But man, if you missed as many episodes as I had missed (probably 10-12), you must have been as confused as I was. I am really feeling moved by the character arcs and how much of a progression there is. The sideways time travel stuff is far more interesting now because I grasp the sort of alt timeline - purgatory - "what if" nature of their struggles. The final back story piece on Linus really moved me for some reason.

    So to answer the OP. The answer is both / and.

    Leave a comment:


  • lommit
    replied
    i been a fan of the 6 seasons of lost and still is, when i sow the ending i found it strange, but then again it's lost. so i thought over the ending and tried to see what happend over the show and the whole time travel and their second life.
    but the ending was to my likeing, even now as i read some of the posts and found out the ending even more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morbo
    replied
    it WAS a happy ending though....

    Leave a comment:


  • kmiller1610
    replied
    Originally posted by *Kiwi* View Post
    I was an active member of 3 Lost related forums for the duration of the show six seasons. I don't feel that I didn't understand the ending, I just wasn't satisfied with it.
    Why? Because it wasn't a happy ending, or because it didn't conform to Sci-Fi dogma (everything MUST have a scientific explanation), or because it was predictable or because it was too hard to relate to, or because there were too many religious trappings?

    I am interested.

    Leave a comment:


  • *Kiwi*
    replied
    I was an active member of 3 Lost related forums for the duration of the show six seasons. I don't feel that I didn't understand the ending, I just wasn't satisfied with it.
    Last edited by *Kiwi*; October 19, 2010, 12:57 AM. Reason: Typo

    Leave a comment:


  • kmiller1610
    replied
    Originally posted by *Kiwi* View Post
    For six years I loved this show to the point of obsession. The island, the characters, the time travel, the possibility they were all somehow linked - wow, this show rocked. In the last hour of the final episode I discover that the Dharma Inititative, the smoke monster, Walt, Claire and her baby, the dozens of connections between the characters - basically all of the things I loved about the show - meant absolutely nothing.
    Everyone in the show was part of a struggle between the man in black and Jacob. Jacob was always trying to protect the island and the man in black was trying to kill him, so that he could escape the island. Jacob was aware of this, so he was always looking for successors or candidates. Jacob was prepared to die. The MIB knew of the candidates and knew he could never escape while any one candidate would succeed Jacob, so he devised a plan to use the animated Locke (controlled by the MIB) to manipulate someone else to kill Jacob, while he devised a plan to try and kill all the candidates at the same time. The smoke monster was a manifestation of the MIB, who carefully manipulated those who lived on the island, mainly through impersonating and animating the dead. Claire died in the scene where the building she was in was hit by a rocket. The person who came out of that building was not Claire, but an animated dead person, which should be obvious, since she walked into the jungle and joined the animated version of Jack's father.

    Any questions?

    Leave a comment:


  • Morbo
    replied
    so, you didn't get it either.

    well, so long. be mad because you didn't bother to understand.

    have fun!

    Leave a comment:


  • *Kiwi*
    replied
    For six years I loved this show to the point of obsession. The island, the characters, the time travel, the possibility they were all somehow linked - wow, this show rocked.

    In the last hour of the final episode I discover that the Dharma Inititative, the smoke monster, Walt, Claire and her baby, the dozens of connections between the characters - basically all of the things I loved about the show - meant absolutely nothing. In the end some of them got off the island, and then they all met up later when they died and lived happily ever after together in purgatory. WTF?

    I am so bitterly disappointed with how the series ended that I never want to watch a single episode of Lost ever again. Even now, months later, I am still so angry that I can hardly put my thoughts into coherrent words.

    Thank goodness I have discovered Stargate Atlantis to help me to move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • kmiller1610
    replied
    Allow me to explain why I am persisting when nobody cares.

    First of all, as a Sci-Fi fac, I object to binary thinking. Science and Spirituality are only opposites in the minds of those who want them to be opposites.

    Second of all, I like to get to the bottom of things and think accurately about them. This show is not about science, science fiction or the spiritual. It's a bloody soap opera unfolding in a universe of psychological,para-psychological-philosophical concepts and explorations.

    Next Source:

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60054223.html

    Causality, then, is congruent with a world which is taken as "natural" (i.e., obeying the classical laws of physics, for example) while acausality embodies the principle of discontinuity, or lack of connectedness ("inconstant connection," to use Jung's term). But, as mentioned, the causal world has been constructed from statistical truth, as a result of a "scientific" outlook. Consequently, as rationally-minded human beings we have become conditioned to a scientific world-view, to the effect that causal events are the only events that make sense, while acausal events stultify our reason. Jung proposed the theory of synchronicity as a means of encompassing acausal events into an ordered framework that would offer a more complete picture of our phenomenological world.

    Leave a comment:


  • kmiller1610
    replied
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...ronicity02.htm

    Synchronicity suggests that mind and matter, as well as past, present and future exist in a meaningfully connected continuum. It also implies that everyday distinctions concerning self and environment, causality and the belief in linear time are historically specific assumptions rather than absolute truths.

    Leave a comment:


  • kmiller1610
    replied
    From am article on Synchronicity by Allen Stairs in 1998:

    The shortest description is that it is "meaningful coincidence."

    I was on my way into the mountains of West Virginia with a woman whom I had been seeing for several months. Our relationship was difficult in many ways and I had a sense that somehow this was a make-or-break weekend. Just after we crossed the West Virginia border, we stopped for gas. I put the nozzle in my tank and cocked the handle to fill automatically, then stood back. While I was watching the display, I thought to myself "Wouldn't it be a bad omen for the relationship if the pump stopped at exactly $13.00?" To my shock, that is what happened. At precisely $13.00, the pump stopped.

    Here we have an outer event matching an inner state. There is certainly no reasonable possibility that one caused the other. Furthermore, the events took place in an atmosphere of psychological charge; I was anxious, and my thought was an expression of my anxieties. And while it might have been a reasonable guess that it would take somewhere around $13.00 to fill the car, I would have grave doubts about my ability to predict the exact amount any more accurately than to within $.50 either way. In fact, this seems much too optimistic, given that prices change from time to time and location to location and that gas gauges are not precision instruments. I find it very hard to believe that there was a chance greater than one in 100 that I could guess the precise amount it would take to fill the tank. But if an event with that low a probability by chance alone happens in the course of a psychology experiment, one has met the standard for publishing the result as "highly statistically significant."

    My attitude toward this particular case is one of studied agnosticism. I neither admit nor deny that it is a genuine case of what Jung calls "synchronicity."

    Why does Jung rule out causal explanations for psi-phenomena? The answer tells us something about his understanding of cause and effect relationships. According to Rhine, his experiments showed that psi effects are not dependent on time nor on distance. Furthermore, Rhine used Faraday cages, which shield the subject from electromagnetic radiation, and the effects persisted.

    We describe things in a language that has a subject/predicate structure. That means that we talk in terms of things that have properties, but are not the same as their properties. This idea came up in our discussion of Locke and substance. But while this might be how we are constrained to describe things, it not need be how things are in themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • kmiller1610
    replied
    Originally posted by Morbo View Post
    yes damon and carlton were inspire by sting. IT'S ALL CLEAR NOW
    All these people running into each other in airports. All these overlapping and consequential encounters and concerns. Keep in mind all the names of characters that are based on famous philosophers. And Synchronicity IS a philosophical construct.

    http://www.fanpop.com/spots/lost/for...on-true-person

    "there are multiple Lost characters named after famous philosophers, most notably John Locke, Rousseau (named for Jean Jacques Rousseau), Desmond (David Hume), and Mikhail (Mikhail Bakunin).

    the characters are all similar in some ways to their philosophical counterparts, but Locke is more than the others. interestingly, Locke's father on Lost is named Anthony Cooper. in real life, politician Anthony Cooper was philosopher John Locke's mentor."

    (and just because Sting studied philosophy doesn't mean he originated the idea of Synchronicity. )

    Note this chart of Jung, who coined the idea. Notice any parallels to LOST elements?:

    Last edited by kmiller1610; October 1, 2010, 12:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Morbo
    replied
    yes damon and carlton were inspire by sting. IT'S ALL CLEAR NOW

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X