The Island is a Nexus, a fragment of the Center of the Universe, where all worlds meet. It is where the matter of our Universe can interact with the Mirror Matter of our Universe. The Island allows these two streams to converge.

In the MirrorVerse, we all have duplicates. They are slightly different than us. They are born at the moment of death, and travel backwards in time towards birth. They remember the future, but have forgotten the past, and so are always searching for the cause of things. They are the agents of Fate, our counterparts, for we are the agents of Choice.

Under normal circumstances, we form an unchanging loop. I am born, make choices, and die, and then my mirror-twin rewinds my story back to the beginning, and we do it all over again. Again and again. Imagine it as a loop of string affixed at two ends, so as to form the shape of an eye.

Coming the Island is not a normal circumstance. On the Island, there is the opportunity for one and one's twin to cross over, to trade places. A transfer of future information to the world of choice allows the strings to move, to dance. The picture changes. Everything changes. The stream of mirror matter on the Island is what confers the experience of time travel.

All the characters have mirror-twins.

This makes a lot of sense to me, jane. Some (http://images.chron.com/blogs/tubular/archives/nemesis.jpg) seem inclined to use this special place to change the future/past to their advantage, whereas others (http://ncjl.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/516-christian-01.jpg) seem to realize that at times it's best to let it go.

Coming the Island is not a normal circumstance. On the Island, there is the opportunity for one and one's twin to cross over, to trade places. A transfer of future information to the world of choice allows the strings to move, to dance. The picture changes. Everything changes. The stream of mirror matter on the Island is what confers the experience of time travel.

There must be some sort of rules governing this opportunity. Ben seemed able to tap in to a stream of knowledge from his mirror twin, as did Ms. Hawking. I'm guessing that, as long as this knowledge was not used to make changes which would affect the existence of the world on the other side of the mirror, course correction would eventually do its thing. When Ben saw that Alex had died, however, he knew that someone, somewhere, had changed the rules. My guess is that it had nothing to do with Widmore, but with the one who opened the loop which allowed Keamy to come to the island in he first place. The alteration of the loop was apparent to Eloise as well, as her ability to communicate with her mirror twin had apparently been snuffed by the time she went to visit Desmond in the hospital. She, like Ben, was able to see that life on the island was a blessing, not a curse. This point of view was not, apparently, shared by Jacob's nemesis, and Eloise knew that there would be consequences if the island's loop were not restored in time ("then God help us all").

So which is better, to close the loop or to leave it dangling?

The Island is a Nexus, a fragment of the Center of the Universe, where all worlds meet. It is where the matter of our Universe can interact with the Mirror Matter of our Universe. The Island allows these two streams to converge.

In the MirrorVerse, we all have duplicates. They are slightly different than us. They are born at the moment of death, and travel backwards in time towards birth. They remember the future, but have forgotten the past, and so are always searching for the cause of things. They are the agents of Fate, our counterparts, for we are the agents of Choice.

Under normal circumstances, we form an unchanging loop. I am born, make choices, and die, and then my mirror-twin rewinds my story back to the beginning, and we do it all over again. Again and again. Imagine it as a loop of string affixed at two ends, so as to form the shape of an eye.

Coming the Island is not a normal circumstance. On the Island, there is the opportunity for one and one's twin to cross over, to trade places. A transfer of future information to the world of choice allows the strings to move, to dance. The picture changes. Everything changes. The stream of mirror matter on the Island is what confers the experience of time travel.

All the characters have mirror-twins.

Jane -- Cool beans! It's great to finally read this.

If I understand you correctly, the (macro-level) arrow of time points in the same direction on both sides, but the "arrow of memory/consciousness" opposes the arrow of time on the mirror side.

Do you suppose the opening of S4 reveals the fate of one of the sets of twins (rather than Widmore's machinations)?

You might check out Twistor (http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/Twistor.html) by John Cramer. Although there's nothing auspicious like the Crab Nebula on the cover, it apparently does involve the shifting of matter between Earth and a mirror matter counterpart (sans twins).

Really cool theory, Jane. I particularly like the memory angle and your suggestion that the MirrorVerse is peopled with agents of Fate as opposed to agents of Choice.

I’ve recently been wondering if the flashbacks could be “future memories” that show what is meant to happen rather than what has already happened to these people. I also suspect that the flash-forwards could’ve been metaphorical depictions of what had already happened on the island. In other words, maybe the flashbacks are the real flash-forwards and vice versa.

H x

I’ve recently been wondering if the flashbacks could be “future memories” that show what is meant to happen rather than what has already happened to these people. I also suspect that the flash-forwards could’ve been metaphorical depictions of what had already happened on the island. In other words, maybe the flashbacks are the real flash-forwards and vice versa.

H x

FutureKate deliberately goes to trial to "cause" her Past self to commit crimes retrocausally. Why? Because someone has to be the prisoner. Kate is positioning herself, like a pawn. She wasn't originally the Fugitive.

Hugo was.

So which is better, to close the loop or to leave it dangling?

Closing the loop after experiencing the twin? And would there be a memory of it after it's closed?
And what would it be like to "leave it dangling"? Is that what the "mating ritual" is?

. In other words, maybe the flashbacks are the real flash-forwards and vice versa.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this would work. Could you give an example? :undecide:
100%
FutureKate deliberately goes to trial to "cause" her Past self to commit crimes retrocausally. Why? Because someone has to be the prisoner. Kate is positioning herself, like a pawn. She wasn't originally the Fugitive.

Hugo was.

A self-aware variable on the move?

Why Hugo?

The Island is a Nexus, a fragment of the Center of the Universe, where all worlds meet. It is where the matter of our Universe can interact with the Mirror Matter of our Universe. The Island allows these two streams to converge.

In the MirrorVerse, we all have duplicates. They are slightly different than us. They are born at the moment of death, and travel backwards in time towards birth. They remember the future, but have forgotten the past, and so are always searching for the cause of things. They are the agents of Fate, our counterparts, for we are the agents of Choice.

Under normal circumstances, we form an unchanging loop. I am born, make choices, and die, and then my mirror-twin rewinds my story back to the beginning, and we do it all over again. Again and again. Imagine it as a loop of string affixed at two ends, so as to form the shape of an eye.

Coming the Island is not a normal circumstance. On the Island, there is the opportunity for one and one's twin to cross over, to trade places. A transfer of future information to the world of choice allows the strings to move, to dance. The picture changes. Everything changes. The stream of mirror matter on the Island is what confers the experience of time travel.

All the characters have mirror-twins.

Well, this does explain much, but there is one thing it does not explain.

What it does explain is one way the loop could work, i.e. travel forward in time, then backwards again to the starting point. Constraints on what a person can do explain the so-called rules.

It does not offer an explanation for Jacobs' "Everything else is progress." or whatever he said.

In other words, maybe the flashbacks are the real flash-forwards and vice versa.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this would work. Could you give an example? :undecide:


It’s still just a vague idea but here goes.

What if Jack’s flashback showing the death of a pregnant woman called Beth referred more to something that was meant to happen to Elizabeth Mitchell’s character in the future?

What if Kate’s flashback showing her killing “Daddy Wayne” referred more to something which was meant to destroy Sawyer in the future?

What if Sayid’s flash-forward showing a woman dying from a gunshot wound to the stomach referred more to what had happened previously on the island to Shannon and/or Libby?

What if Hurley’s flash-forward showing his speeding car crashing through a pile of papayas referred more to what had happened previously on the island when he mowed down the Others in the Dharma van?

H x

What if Jack’s flashback showing the death of a pregnant woman called Beth referred more to something that was meant to happen to Elizabeth Mitchell’s character in the future?

What if Juliet is a metaphor for the Island?


What if Hurley’s flash-forward showing his speeding car crashing through a pile of papayas referred more to what had happened previously on the island when he mowed down the Others in the Dharma van?

His mowing down the Others is reflected not when he topples the papaya pile, but when he smashes through the collection of mirrors.

What if Jack’s flashback showing the death of a pregnant woman called Beth referred more to something that was meant to happen to Elizabeth Mitchell’s character in the future?

Ok I sort of get it, but wouldn't that create an eternal loop? If we've already seen the present-past-future, can there ever be any change in what we've seen so far?


What if Juliet is a metaphor for the Island?


What if this whole thing is Jack's count to 5?



His mowing down the Others is reflected not when he topples the papaya pile, but when he smashes through the collection of mirrors.

I like that.



You know you guys got me thinking of the bodies now. The ones Widmore dug out for the "fake" plane and the Dharma ones in the pit...
Same bodies?

What if Juliet is a metaphor for the Island?

I like it - but what if the island is a metaphor for Juliet? No man is an island, so maybe a woman is.


His mowing down the Others is reflected not when he topples the papaya pile, but when he smashes through the collection of mirrors.

Yeah, sorry, that makes more sense given the title of this thread. But you still get my drift, no?

Ok I sort of get it, but wouldn't that create an eternal loop? If we've already seen the present-past-future, can there ever be any change in what we've seen so far?

If everything was (is? will?!) lead to Juliet’s predicament at the end of S5, maybe her fate was designed to break the loop? Maybe she’s the “end of the rainbow”? Also, we don’t know for sure how many times they’ve attempted to get to this end-point. Certain things seem to suggest it could’ve taken several go’s, a quite literal case of history repeating itself until they got it right. Kind of like a computer game where you can only proceed to the next level once you’ve successfully completed the one before, otherwise you have to start all over again. Just like this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oIBgm9biPg&feature=related


What if this whole thing is Jack's count to 5?

Interesting - how would that work, then?

I wondered if the “5” could represent the letter “V” to denote “V for Victory”, since counting to it enables Jack and Kate to conquer their fears. It’d also be quite apt considering Ms Mitchell’s new show.

You know you guys got me thinking of the bodies now. The ones Widmore dug out for the "fake" plane and the Dharma ones in the pit...
Same bodies?

I don’t think so but they could tie in with other people that have been “buried”, either literally or figuratively. Jack and Charlie were “buried alive” in the cave-in, and Charlie’s emergence was reminiscent of “Carrie” which could be relevant considering it was Juliet’s “all-time favorite book”. Locke was “left for dead” in the Dharma Pit but obviously lived to tell the tale. Pikki were still alive when they were buried, and Ethan’s shrouded corpse was visibly still breathing when it was about to be buried. I suppose you could even include Des’ incarceration in the Swan, considering it might prove to be Juliet’s tomb. Maybe the point is that somebody is meant to be mistaken for dead, or they emerge from the grave? Not sure, just tossing out a few ideas.

H x

The mirror twin structure runs through the show like a Jacob's Ladder toy. All the pieces of the mosaic are double-hinged. Flip one end and all the other pieces flip over to the other side in a sort of cascading effect (not unlike a Rube Goldberg mousetrap.)

If everything was (is? will?!) lead to Juliet’s predicament at the end of S5, maybe her fate was designed to break the loop? Maybe she’s the “end of the rainbow”? Also, we don’t know for sure how many times they’ve attempted to get to this end-point. Certain things seem to suggest it could’ve taken several go’s, a quite literal case of history repeating itself until they got it right. Kind of like a computer game where you can only proceed to the next level once you’ve successfully completed the one before, otherwise you have to start all over again.

I see, so we've been watching all the efforts to break this loop and all the subtle and/or significant changes is what made things look slightly and/or noticeably different. To put it plainly.



Interesting - how would that work, then?

I wondered if the “5” could represent the letter “V” to denote “V for Victory”, since counting to it enables Jack and Kate to conquer their fears. It’d also be quite apt considering Ms Mitchell’s new show.

Well, not sure how it would work. The idea came to me while I was thinking whether the island could be a body-as in a human body. Or a part of a body that has been in slumber, and the rest of the parts suddenly becoming aware of it. A disintegrated body that becomes aware of itself in its entirety and desires to become whole again. In which case, you need the Healer to take part in this journey. The doctor. That's how it begins. With the doctor's eye opening.
The first story we hear from the doc is the count to 5. And he lies about it. And they show us that he lied about it at the end of S5, a circle closing. So this story must be essential to why everything is happening. Maybe this is what forced Jack to go down the rabbit whole. The moment he messed up on the girl's spine was so terrifying it forced him to go deep within and find the strength to deal with it. Think of Christian asking him to count to 5, and think of Christian saying "He has work to do". So it begins.
And maybe he needed his twin -a female doctor- to break the circle.
The episode where we get to see where he got his "5" tattoo is also the one that Juliet gets her mark. At the base of the spine.
I'm not sure how to connect all this and the more I talk about it the more confusing it gets in my head so I'll stop now :rolleyes:



I don’t think so but they could tie in with other people that have been “buried”, either literally or figuratively. Jack and Charlie were “buried alive” in the cave-in, and Charlie’s emergence was reminiscent of “Carrie” which could be relevant considering it was Juliet’s “all-time favorite book”. Locke was “left for dead” in the Dharma Pit but obviously lived to tell the tale. Pikki were still alive when they were buried, and Ethan’s shrouded corpse was visibly still breathing when it was about to be buried. I suppose you could even include Des’ incarceration in the Swan, considering it might prove to be Juliet’s tomb. Maybe the point is that somebody is meant to be mistaken for dead, or they emerge from the grave? Not sure, just tossing out a few ideas.

Oh and Jack needs to bury his father.

I like it - but what if the island is a metaphor for Juliet? No man is an island, so maybe a woman is.

There are two islands though, right? The other one is used mostly for work, as the sheriff told Jack. Maybe the other island is the male counterpart. And that's where he first meets Juliet. Through a glass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUXBCdt5IPg

I see, so we've been watching all the efforts to break this loop and all the subtle and/or significant changes is what made things look slightly and/or noticeably different. To put it plainly.

I’d describe it more as having watched their various attempts to reach the end-point (whether that’s Juliet detonating the Jughead or what happens immediately afterwards), and that the process forced them into a loop-like repetition of events in order to achieve that goal - but yes, it sounds like we’re both kind of on the same track here. It would definitely explain the subtle changes we’ve seen in repeat viewings of certain scenes.


Well, not sure how it would work. The idea came to me while I was thinking whether the island could be a body-as in a human body. Or a part of a body that has been in slumber, and the rest of the parts suddenly becoming aware of it. A disintegrated body that becomes aware of itself in its entirety and desires to become whole again. In which case, you need the Healer to take part in this journey. The doctor. That's how it begins. With the doctor's eye opening.

So the doctor is part of the “island-body”, or he’s a separate entity? Could it be a case of “physician, heal thyself”?


The first story we hear from the doc is the count to 5. And he lies about it. And they show us that he lied about it at the end of S5, a circle closing. So this story must be essential to why everything is happening.

I loved that scene in the pilot episode, so I’m still trying to get my head around the “flip-side” of events as depicted in The Incident. It’s weird because I still can’t work out why he’d need to lie about what had happened. It’s ironic when you think about it, because she’s literally stitching him up whilst he’s figuratively “stitching her up” - although maybe that’s the whole point.

Anyway, that first scene showed that he needed someone’s help at that point and he even sheds a tear - plus he doesn’t wipe it away, which shows he’s not ashamed to show weakness. So the “lie” can’t be purely about looking macho and heroic, because he’s already presenting himself as the opposite to her. Not just with his behavior and attitude at the time, but also by describing the precise circumstances of the story - basically, “A kid was nearly left permanently disabled because I screwed up”. Which means that even if he’d told Kate the whole truth (“I needed help to overcome a terrifying situation and it worked”), he couldn’t appear any more weak or vulnerable than he already was, and it would still be valid advice because it would still be helping her to overcome a terrifying situation.

I still wonder if Christian somehow represents the person Jack was before the crash (hence why Christian’s corpse isn’t in the coffin when Jack finds it). In which case, Jack’s story wouldn’t have been a lie because he (as Christian) would’ve been telling himself (as Jack) to count to five.

However, maybe it’s not what was said but rather who it was said to that’s the important bit. The second version of events suggests that Jack wasn’t being entirely truthful with Kate. In other words, he wasn’t telling her “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” - like in wedding vows. And the following scene has him telling Sawyer how he can’t be with Kate, that they can’t be “the happy couple”. It’s almost like the flashback is pre-confirming this (just like Juliet’s flashback seems to be pre-confirming that she can’t remain with Sawyer).

I dunno, it’s a strange one but I definitely agree it’s a vital pair of scenes.


Maybe this is what forced Jack to go down the rabbit whole. The moment he messed up on the girl's spine was so terrifying it forced him to go deep within and find the strength to deal with it. Think of Christian asking him to count to 5, and think of Christian saying "He has work to do". So it begins.

Ages ago, I posted a theory that the whole “Count to Five” story was a metaphor for Jack’s first true “doctorly” act on the island - reviving Rose; and that the “angel hair pasta” referred to her afro hair and comforting persona, and the “count to five” angle tied in with heart compressions. It's admittedly a bit of a stretch but could still be a possibility, I suppose.


And maybe he needed his twin -a female doctor- to break the circle

Definitely agree that Juliet plays a vital role in all this.


The episode where we get to see where he got his "5" tattoo is also the one that Juliet gets her mark. At the base of the spine.

Most likely an intentional parallel.


I'm not sure how to connect all this and the more I talk about it the more confusing it gets in my head so I'll stop now :rolleyes:

Tell me about it! I have that trouble all the time.


Oh and Jack needs to bury his father.

Good one, although he could’ve been speaking figuratively.

There are two islands though, right? The other one is used mostly for work, as the sheriff told Jack. Maybe the other island is the male counterpart. And that's where he first meets Juliet. Through a glass.

So if she’s a reflection of him, perhaps it’s more likely that Juliet is “his other half”? Don’t forget that Ben commented on her likeness to Jack’s “ex”.

I still reckon she’s the “X” in the title of the season 6 opener - LA X.

H x

The very first episode, Pilot Part 1, has a mirror-twinned structure to it.

Jack's Opening Eye reflects the trees and sky above.
The dead pilot is spotted by Kate from a reflection in a puddle down below.

Jack has two cuts on his right cheek and below his left eye.
Pilot has one cut on his right cheek and below his left eye.

Jack's right eye is an Opening Eye.
The pilot's right eye is welded shut.

Jack took pilot lessons, but it wasn't for him.
The pilot was a pilot, it *was* for him.

The episode is split in two by a FlashBack in the center.
Both halves feature the monster at the end.

First half begins in day and ends at night. True night.
Second half begins in day and ends "as day turns into night," according the Charlie. False night.

The first half features Jack being a hero, saving people's lives.
The second half features Jack on the Heroic Journey into the heart of darkness.

Jack and the Pilot are shown in twinned (http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-3-645.html) shots (http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-3-646.html).
The pilot's wings are mirrored.

Jack opens the episode alive, sprawled out on the ground.
The pilot ends the episode dead, sprawled out in the air.

The very first episode, Pilot Part 1, has a mirror-twinned structure to it.

Great observations, Jane! I particularly like the parallel of Jack’s first appearance and the pilot’s last. Fantastic.

B.t.w you recently posted an image of Magritte’s False Mirror in relation to Lost’s opening shot of Jack. Do you think it’s relevant that Christian’s initial appearance silhouetted against the blue sky was reminiscent of Magritte’s Son of Man - especially since he’s later shown to be something of a “ManSon” with the death of Beth and her unborn child?

Here are the relevant images, just for anyone not familiar with them:-

Magritte’s False Mirro: http://academics.adelphi.edu/honcol/modconart/img/Magritte-falsemirror1.jpg

Magritte’s Son of Man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magritte_TheSonOfMan.jpg

Christian’s first appearance on the island: http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-22-454.html


However, maybe it’s not what was said but rather who it was said to that’s the important bit. The second version of events suggests that Jack wasn’t being entirely truthful with Kate. In other words, he wasn’t telling her “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” - like in wedding vows.

OK, scrap that - obviously you tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” when you’re sworn in in court, not when you’re getting married. Duh!

Mind you, it could be relevant that Jack was also shown lying in a court of law, about his feelings towards Kate. Hmmm.

When you’re sworn in, the oath ends “So help me God”. So do Jack’s lies signify that he doesn’t need God’s help, or that he’s involved in something bad and God would therefore be unlikely to help him? Again, it makes me think of the Magritte connection because if this is all about “killing” Juliet (or at least making it appear that way, to prompt a certain reaction from someone close to her), then surely this makes him something of a “Son of Man” or "Manson". Jesus was known as the Son of Man, so does this mean that Jack is the Island’s Messiah?!

H x

So the doctor is part of the “island-body”, or he’s a separate entity? Could it be a case of “physician, heal thyself”?

I guess that depends on whether what we've watched so far is Jack's "walkabout". In which case the rest of the people would be little fragments of himself reflecting back at him-the unresolved issues within. The island would then be the inside of the mirror (eyes looking inside the body), the FBs and FFs would be the outside of the mirror (eyes looking outside the body),happening simultaneously.

It’s ironic when you think about it, because she’s literally stitching him up whilst he’s figuratively “stitching her up” - although maybe that’s the whole point.

Heh, maybe that's what it's all about. The boy/girl, doctor/patient mix up.
Jack at his wedding: I didn't fix you. You fixed me.


I still wonder if Christian somehow represents the person Jack was before the crash (hence why Christian’s corpse isn’t in the coffin when Jack finds it). In which case, Jack’s story wouldn’t have been a lie because he (as Christian) would’ve been telling himself (as Jack) to count to five.

Exactly. The outside world is no less of a mirror than the inside. It's just harder to see that looking out. Inside things are more compact.


In other words, he wasn’t telling her “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” - like in wedding vows.

Wedding or trial?

And the following scene has him telling Sawyer how he can’t be with Kate, that they can’t be “the happy couple”. It’s almost like the flashback is pre-confirming this (just like Juliet’s flashback seems to be pre-confirming that she can’t remain with Sawyer).

There's still something bothering me about that, and I'm going a bit off topic here. At first I thought Jack wanted to go back out of guilt. Locke said it was his fault things went wrong because he left. Then he decides to blow up the place, trusting Faraday that everything's going to be ok. Just like that? But then he says it's the first time in his life that he knows it's the right thing to do. And I thought, ok, Jack's finally in touch with his instinct and his faith. He believes. Fair enough. But then Sawyer asks "Why do you REALLY wanna do this?" and Jack says: "I had her." Wait. So...this is because he can't handle losing the girl so he's willing to take it all back, to erase his memories with Kate to avoid the pain it's causing him? And isn't that the reason Juliet changes her mind and asks Sawyer to let Jack do it?

JULIET: I... if I never meet you, then I never have to lose you.

Hmmm...yes Juliet could definitely be Jack's mirror twin.



So if she’s a reflection of him, perhaps it’s more likely that Juliet is “his other half”? Don’t forget that Ben commented on her likeness to Jack’s “ex”.

Yes, the part he's missing in order to become whole. And maybe Sawyer is the part Kate's missing in order to become whole. And THEN Jack-whole merges with Kate-whole. And so on, until there's one. Or none. Boom.


I still reckon she’s the “X” in the title of the season 6 opener - LA X.


Yes, Jack and Juliet crossing.
JJ.
OMG!! JJ!! JJ ABRAMS! There MUST be a connection there!! :eek:

I'm tired :drowsy:
100%
When you’re sworn in, the oath ends “So help me God”. So do Jack’s lies signify that he doesn’t need God’s help, or that he’s involved in something bad and God would therefore be unlikely to help him?

Or that he doesn't believe in the traditional God that a courthouse would be referring to.
The father-figure type of God. I can't get much into this, I'm not religious and I might unintentionally offend someone. I'll give you this though:
Locke's father after being informed that Locke's mother said he was immaculately conceived: "I guess that makes me God then."

All good cowboys have daddy issues.


Again, it makes me think of the Magritte connection because if this is all about “killing” Juliet (or at least making it appear that way, to prompt a certain reaction from someone close to her), then surely this makes him something of a “Son of Man” or "Manson". Jesus was known as the Son of Man, so does this mean that Jack is the Island’s Messiah?!

You lost me. Why would Juliet's death make Jack son of man?

And where's the Mother in this equation anyway?!

Ah yes, I forgot, no mothers on the island...


Jane: Wonderful observations, as always :kiss:

Jane, I am definitely confused.

If our "mirror twin" is "born" when we die, how could we ever meet our twin?

Granted you said the island is a special place where the two can meet, but help me understand that.

My twin would not be created until I die. Even if there is a "mirror universe", my twin would not exist in it until my death. Somehow if the island could allow a connection between the two universes and I could somehow interact with that universe, my twin would not be there. Right?

Jane, I am definitely confused.

If our "mirror twin" is "born" when we die, how could we ever meet our twin?

Granted you said the island is a special place where the two can meet, but help me understand that.

My twin would not be created until I die. Even if there is a "mirror universe", my twin would not exist in it until my death. Somehow if the island could allow a connection between the two universes and I could somehow interact with that universe, my twin would not be there. Right?

The mirror/twin realities coexist side by side, and the mirror side is going backwards in time, compared to our "forward" advancement. It's like two sides of a cassette tape. Play one side, turn it over, and play the other side as it loops back around to the beginning. Both "realities" are part of one universe, just like both sides of the cassette are part of a single cassette.

Normally, the two sides play without interfering with each other. On the Island, the two sides bleed into one another. Our side gets future information from the other side, and the other side gets past information from our side. The songs become mosaicized (http://broccoliworks.com/magritte.carteblanche.html), switching back and forth, like ghosts popping in an out of existence. The cassette looks to take on a life of its own.

The Other Side, by the way, may be more easily perceived as "the good guys," while we are on the "bad side". Your mirror-twin comes back in time to deliver you to a different reality, and doing so is an act of self-sacrifice on the part of your mirror twin, for passing on the information will effectively negate the existence of your mirror twin. When this happens repeatedly, one may perceive "progress" in one's existence, as your incessant self-sacrifice moves you towards "better" experiences than you would have had otherwise.

OK. It is a LITTLE more clear. The part that had me most confused was when you were talking about a person having to die before their twin is created (my words, not yours).

Really you are saying that everyone's twin already exists in the "mirror universe" (i.e. my twin would already be in the "mirror universe" without me having to die). These twins are "going backwards in time" (at least from our point of view). The island is a place where these twins can meet. Am I closer?

Essentially this crude diagram. The arrows show the direction of time.The island allows the two to meet.

----->------>----->----->-----> Our universe
ISLAND
<-----<-----<-----<-----<-----< Mirror Universe

BTW, when you say the twins can meet, do you mean physically meet, or just a meeting of the minds?

Normally, the two sides play without interfering with each other. On the Island, the two sides bleed into one another. Our side gets future information from the other side, and the other side gets past information from our side. The songs become mosaicized (http://broccoliworks.com/magritte.carteblanche.html), switching back and forth, like ghosts popping in an out of existence. The cassette looks to take on a life of its own.

But the information is "future" information for both sides right?

The Other Side, by the way, may be more easily perceived as "the good guys," while we are on the "bad side". Your mirror-twin comes back in time to deliver you to a different reality, and doing so is an act of self-sacrifice on the part of your mirror twin, for passing on the information will effectively negate the existence of your mirror twin. When this happens repeatedly, one may perceive "progress" in one's existence, as your incessant self-sacrifice moves you towards "better" experiences than you would have had otherwise.

I like how that sounds but I don't completely understand it, especially when I try to understand how it would be applied. Ok, why would the other side (I'll assume the "other" is the one who is going from future to past, yes?) be perceived as good and "our" side (experiencing time in the "regular" way) be the bad one?
And, why is it that it's only considered a sacrifice from the "other's" interaction? Wouldn't the meeting and exchange of information have an impact on both sides?
And, and, when you say "one's existence", how do you mean the one"? One of two sides or one as in both sides meeting/mating on a regular basis?

OK. It is a LITTLE more clear. The part that had me most confused was when you were talking about a person having to die before their twin is created (my words, not yours).

Really you are saying that everyone's twin already exists in the "mirror universe" (i.e. my twin would already be in the "mirror universe" without me having to die). These twins are "going backwards in time" (at least from our point of view). The island is a place where these twins can meet. Am I closer?

Yes... except that birth and death are essential parts of the equation. Your birth is your twin's death, and your death is your twin's birth. See, you're already dead, you just don't know it because you haven't remembered the future yet.


BTW, when you say the twins can meet, do you mean physically meet, or just a meeting of the minds?

I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to say meeting of the minds. On the Island, I wonder if reflective surfaces offer a "crossover" point. Mirrors, water, shiny tables and floors... these are are all reflective. They're like portals from one side to the other. Physical meetings, I don't know... it always seems like there's some sort of glass or veil separating the two.


But the information is "future" information for both sides right?

Yes... kinda. The same, but different, and it depends on what we mean by "future", which has more than one meaning depending on perspective. Maybe some different words might help. The Alpha of the Universe is the Creation, the Cause, the Birth. The Omega of the Universe is the Death, the End, the Result. From our perspective, we are travelling from Alpha to Omega. From the Other Side, one travels from the Omega to the Alpha. Omega is our future, and Alpha is their future. We remember Alpha, and they remember Omega. We don't remember where we're going, and they don't remember how they got there.


I like how that sounds but I don't completely understand it, especially when I try to understand how it would be applied. Ok, why would the other side (I'll assume the "other" is the one who is going from future to past, yes?) be perceived as good and "our" side (experiencing time in the "regular" way) be the bad one?

Well, I tried to demarcate the idea with quotation marks. In our culture, we tend to equate the "good guys" with those who make sacrifices, and the "bad guys" with those who don't.


And, why is it that it's only considered a sacrifice from the "other's" interaction? Wouldn't the meeting and exchange of information have an impact on both sides?

Oh! yes yes yes! Okay, so Kate is grilling Miles about "what she done", and this is MirrorKate who knows the End but doesn't know the Cause. Maybe she will have an opportunity to change the Causes such that the End is preserved and yet changed in some way. She would know whether the End is worth it... and if she's coming from the End of Humanity, she might be looking to change the picture by rearranging her Causes.


And, and, when you say "one's existence", how do you mean the one"? One of two sides or one as in both sides meeting/mating on a regular basis?

The "one" I mean is the "pair" of twins, who normally don't meet but whose "continuity errors" (birth and death) connect them into a single loop. The loop gets knotted up, spliced, even mangled... when it passes through the twisty labyrinth of the Island.

I guess that depends on whether what we've watched so far is Jack's "walkabout".

I like the parallel with Locke’s pre-crash intentions.



In which case the rest of the people would be little fragments of himself reflecting back at him-the unresolved issues within. The island would then be the inside of the mirror (eyes looking inside the body), the FBs and FFs would be the outside of the mirror (eyes looking outside the body),happening simultaneously.

Interesting - if a bit mind boggling! I can see why you posted the link to that video now, and I like the idea that the other characters could all be fragments of some “core” person since it loosely parallels my own theories.



Heh, maybe that's what it's all about. The boy/girl, doctor/patient mix up.
Jack at his wedding: I didn't fix you. You fixed me.

Nice one, especially the bit about boy/girl mix-up. That one’s gonna figure large, I reckon, though I have no idea how at the moment.

Wedding or trial?

Not sure if you missed my second post where I admitted my mistake - or are you suggesting that some marriages are “a trial” as in “ordeal”?!



There's still something bothering me about that, and I'm going a bit off topic here. At first I thought Jack wanted to go back out of guilt. Locke said it was his fault things went wrong because he left. Then he decides to blow up the place, trusting Faraday that everything's going to be ok. Just like that? But then he says it's the first time in his life that he knows it's the right thing to do. And I thought, ok, Jack's finally in touch with his instinct and his faith. He believes. Fair enough. But then Sawyer asks "Why do you REALLY wanna do this?" and Jack says: "I had her." Wait. So...this is because he can't handle losing the girl so he's willing to take it all back, to erase his memories with Kate to avoid the pain it's causing him?

It’s a weird one, isn’t it? I’ve gone round and round in circles trying to work out what the heck it all means and still haven’t come to any firm conclusions. Although Jack’s description of how he “had” Kate and let her go kind of echoes Sawyer’s dialogue to Juliet at the end of the episode (“I got you!”), as she’s being pulled down into the shaft. Maybe Jack’s situation is meant to foreshadow Sawyers?


And isn't that the reason Juliet changes her mind and asks Sawyer to let Jack do it?

JULIET: I... if I never meet you, then I never have to lose you.

Hmmm...yes Juliet could definitely be Jack's mirror twin.

Definitely something connecting that pair of characters. Can’t decide if they’re the real couple, or they‘re a metaphor for some other couple who were parted previously.



Yes, the part he's missing in order to become whole. And maybe Sawyer is the part Kate's missing in order to become whole. And THEN Jack-whole merges with Kate-whole. And so on, until there's one. Or none. Boom.

Blimey, now my head’s really spinning!

The father-figure type of God. I can't get much into this, I'm not religious and I might unintentionally offend someone. I'll give you this though:
Locke's father after being informed that Locke's mother said he was immaculately conceived: "I guess that makes me God then."

Plus Locke’s orange peel scene in the pilot episode was a nod to The Godfather.


You lost me. Why would Juliet's death make Jack son of man?

It doesn’t as such - it makes him “Man’s Son” or “Manson”. That’s why the clues are so baffling to interpret because on the one hand Jack is apparently being portrayed as a Christlike figure (raising characters from the dead, curing the lame, rising from his cave-in tomb etc); but so many other things (*) seem to suggest that he could be heading some kind of perverted re-enactment of the horrific Manson murders.

(*) These include Flight 815; Alice in Wonderland references; Jack’s piano playing in Othersville; Charlotte Lewis; Veronica Hamel as Margot; the dolls Jack found in the caves; Christian being responsible for the death of a woman and her unborn child; Robin Weigart as Rachel; Charlie’s failed pop career; Good Vibrations; Eddie the hitchhiker; Locke’s Eureka “family”; The Temple; Sawyer calling Pickett “Chinatown”; and the countless (sometimes incredibly cryptic) Beatles’ references, possibly including the white-out at the end of S5.

So I’m struggling to work out whether Jack’s meant to be Ultimate Good (“Christ”) or Ultimate Bad (“anti-Christ”); or whether the clues are hinting more broadly at the idea of someone Good doing something very Bad, and vice versa. I just chucked the theory out there to see if anyone else could get a better handle on it because I’m failing miserably!

And where's the Mother in this equation anyway?!

It’s either Juliet, or she’s being used as the replacement for another woman who died previously.


Ah yes, I forgot, no mothers on the island...

So we’ve been led to believe, even though Rousseau, Claire and Amy all successfully gave birth on the island, and Sun conceived on the island and later supposedly gave birth to a healthy baby girl. Surely you’d agree that something doesn’t add up here?


Yes... except that birth and death are essential parts of the equation. Your birth is your twin's death, and your death is your twin's birth. See, you're already dead, you just don't know it because you haven't remembered the future yet.

I really like this description, Jane.


In our culture, we tend to equate the "good guys" with those who make sacrifices, and the "bad guys" with those who don't.

Interesting comment. I wonder if Lost will ultimately revolve around a “bad guy” who’s been conned into making some kind of sacrifice - maybe it would involve him being tricked into becoming a “good guy” first?


Oh! yes yes yes! Okay, so Kate is grilling Miles about "what she done", and this is MirrorKate who knows the End but doesn't know the Cause. Maybe she will have an opportunity to change the Causes such that the End is preserved and yet changed in some way. She would know whether the End is worth it... and if she's coming from the End of Humanity, she might be looking to change the picture by rearranging her Causes.

If the End is always preserved, is it worth even attempting to alter the path towards it? What would be accomplished?

Maybe that’s the whole point - it’s futile.

It’s a bit depressing, no?

H x

Interesting - if a bit mind boggling! I can see why you posted the link to that video now, and I like the idea that the other characters could all be fragments of some “core” person since it loosely parallels my own theories.

This is a mythic perspective. Each character is a "core" person, and is also a "fragment" of everyone else. The thing to remember is that with the logic of metaphor, there is no exclusivity. All of the metaphors can be true simultaneously, even if they contradict each other. Laminate them together and the "convergent data" will show that the whole is not the same as the sum of the parts: a new pattern emerges, strongly, like a moth emerging from a cocoon.


I guess that depends on whether what we've watched so far is Jack's "walkabout". In which case the rest of the people would be little fragments of himself reflecting back at him-the unresolved issues within. The island would then be the inside of the mirror (eyes looking inside the body), the FBs and FFs would be the outside of the mirror (eyes looking outside the body),happening simultaneously.

I love this description. The Island as a "two way" mirror. Like the two-way mirror in the police station, where Hurley sees "Island" breaching into his reality.


Nice one, especially the bit about boy/girl mix-up. That one’s gonna figure large, I reckon, though I have no idea how at the moment.

A metaphorical convergence of perspectives?


Not sure if you missed my second post where I admitted my mistake - or are you suggesting that some marriages are “a trial” as in “ordeal”?!

Trial and error? Trial as "experiment".


It doesn’t as such - it makes him “Man’s Son” or “Manson”. That’s why the clues are so baffling to interpret because on the one hand Jack is apparently being portrayed as a Christlike figure (raising characters from the dead, curing the lame, rising from his cave-in tomb etc); but so many other things (*) seem to suggest that he could be heading some kind of perverted re-enactment of the horrific Manson murders.

...I’m struggling to work out whether Jack’s meant to be Ultimate Good (“Christ”) or Ultimate Bad (“anti-Christ”); or whether the clues are hinting more broadly at the idea of someone Good doing something very Bad, and vice versa. I just chucked the theory out there to see if anyone else could get a better handle on it because I’m failing miserably!


Jack is both, not one or the other. His actions have consequences which are "good" in light of certain intentions and "bad" in light of others.


I wonder if Lost will ultimately revolve around a “bad guy” who’s been conned into making some kind of sacrifice - maybe it would involve him being tricked into becoming a “good guy” first?

Sounds like Sawyer.

I keep coming back to Confidence Man, both the Lost episode and Melville's book. The writers are in the position of con men. In a sense, that's what they do for a living. Fiction is a confidence game. In this light, the art of con is not inherently good or bad. We like magic shows, even though we know there's a trick. We like stories, and suspending our disbelief sufficiently to invest in characters and have emotional moments through them - sharing in their tragedies and triumphs, and their moments of grace.

So, we know they're lying, and *they* know they're lying, and they know we know they're lying. So how do they throw us off balance, so that we might have the experience of surprise? By lying about their lying, in such a way that their lies aren't actually lies, but truths.

In Confidence Man (Lindelof's) we see that just about every character is a con artist. Locke cons Sayid into thinking Sawyer whacked him in the head. Sawyer conning the group into thinking he has the inhalers. Jack and Sayid conning themselves about their complicity in torture. Kate conning Sawyer into revealing his secrets (for his own good, of course.) Charlie conning Claire into eating imaginary peanut butter, and Hurley conning Charlie into thinking he doesn't hoard food.

It's the same in Melville. The streamboat Fidele sees an endless parade of con-men, and the cons are much better educated than their marks. They converge into a single conman in the second half of the book known as The Cosmopolitan.. and it's though a single snakelike spirit jumps from character to character, and off the pages into the author himself, who is quite aware of exactly how authors con readers into believing their fictions. It's a dense, gorgeous read... just like Lost.

Whether we love or despise our con-men depends on the experience delivered.


If the End is always preserved, is it worth even attempting to alter the path towards it? What would be accomplished?

Maybe that’s the whole point - it’s futile.

It’s a bit depressing, no?

H x

The End is "what it says". What it "means" depends on the path taken towards it. So it doesn't have to be futile or depressing - rather, it can be seen as an opportunity to "make meaning" and hence to participate in the Divine.

This is a mythic perspective. Each character is a "core" person, and is also a "fragment" of everyone else. The thing to remember is that with the logic of metaphor, there is no exclusivity. All of the metaphors can be true simultaneously, even if they contradict each other. Laminate them together and the "convergent data" will show that the whole is not the same as the sum of the parts: a new pattern emerges, strongly, like a moth emerging from a cocoon.

Which makes it impossible to work out who is who here! So maybe it’s a case of “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together”?

I love this description. The Island as a "two way" mirror. Like the two-way mirror in the police station, where Hurley sees "Island" breaching into his reality.

So many mirrors and lenses featured on the show - and I’m sure we can include our TV screens here too.


A metaphorical convergence of perspectives?

Could be.


Trial and error? Trial as "experiment".

Trial by ordeal?


Jack is both, not one or the other. His actions have consequences which are "good" in light of certain intentions and "bad" in light of others.

Yes, you’re absolutely right. I think that’s where I keep coming unstuck because I keep trying to assign absolute “good” or “bad” status to everyone, and it’s much more ambiguous or fluid than that, isn’t it?


Sounds like Sawyer.

Good, because it was meant to.

So much emphasis seems to have been placed on Jack’s gradual fall from grace and whether he’ll ever be able to redeem himself and make a heroic “come-back”; but I’m much more interested in Sawyer’s more graphic switch from con-man to trusted pillar of society, practically within the course of a single episode this season. It’d be a great twist if we discovered that he’d been tricked into becoming such a decent man that he’d willingly sacrifice himself for some (possibly non-existent) Greater Good. I reckon that could be the real “Dharma Initiative” and it’s all been “Sawyer’s Long Con”.

In Confidence Man (Lindelof's) we see that just about every character is a con artist. Locke cons Sayid into thinking Sawyer whacked him in the head. Sawyer conning the group into thinking he has the inhalers. Jack and Sayid conning themselves about their complicity in torture. Kate conning Sawyer into revealing his secrets (for his own good, of course.) Charlie conning Claire into eating imaginary peanut butter, and Hurley conning Charlie into thinking he doesn't hoard food.

Well observed.


Whether we love or despise our con-men depends on the experience delivered.

I reckon we’re going to have our illusions shattered about most of the characters on Lost by the end, and it’s going to be a total mind-f*!k.

The End is "what it says". What it "means" depends on the path taken towards it. So it doesn't have to be futile or depressing - rather, it can be seen as an opportunity to "make meaning" and hence to participate in the Divine.

How true. You’re very wise, Jane.

H x

Which makes it impossible to work out who is who here! So maybe it’s a case of “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together”?

So many mirrors and lenses featured on the show - and I’m sure we can include our TV screens here too.

Yes, you’re absolutely right. I think that’s where I keep coming unstuck because I keep trying to assign absolute “good” or “bad” status to everyone, and it’s much more ambiguous or fluid than that, isn’t it?

Good and bad aren't properties that inhere within an individual. However, I do think these categories originate from the body, so it makes sense to make these kind of assignments. They are experiential. We use empathy to predict experiences in others, and this is the basis for moral understanding and behavior. It's certainly imperfect, but most of the time it's quite simple and easy; hence the widespread sense that people "are basically good." On the other hand, ambiguous and complicated situations make it increasingly difficult to practice empathy with any reliability let alone without compromise.

Rather than thinking of the characters as good or bad, instead look at the opportunities and challenges they have before them, and what choices they have made. What impact do they have? What are their intentions? What forces and emotions play a role in their decision making? If you were in their shoes, what choices would you make? Do you see an option that they don't?



I reckon we’re going to have our illusions shattered about most of the characters on Lost by the end, and it’s going to be a total mind-f*!k.

In my college days I got into a moo or a mud, can't remember, and one day we all got together at Howard Johnson's for dinner.

Good and bad aren't properties that inhere within an individual. However, I do think these categories originate from the body, so it makes sense to make these kind of assignments. They are experiential. We use empathy to predict experiences in others, and this is the basis for moral understanding and behavior. It's certainly imperfect, but most of the time it's quite simple and easy; hence the widespread sense that people "are basically good." On the other hand, ambiguous and complicated situations make it increasingly difficult to practice empathy with any reliability let alone without compromise.

Rather than thinking of the characters as good or bad, instead look at the opportunities and challenges they have before them, and what choices they have made. What impact do they have? What are their intentions? What forces and emotions play a role in their decision making? If you were in their shoes, what choices would you make? Do you see an option that they don't?

I totally agree with everything you’ve said, but I don’t think it’s necessarily as “simple” as that in this case. We rightly judge these characters on their on-island actions but I’d argue that our opinions are also colored by their pre-crash histories. We’re able to love (or loathe) them because we can appreciate why they’re acting in a certain way, what’s their “motivation” whether good or bad.

However, I think we’re wrong to assume that we’ve got all the correct information we need to properly assess these characters. We still don’t know why they’re in this situation, and I still reckon the flashbacks aren’t an accurate depiction of what they’d experienced before waking up on the island in the pilot episode. So if the flashbacks aren’t an accurate depiction, this means they might not have been in a plane crash. If they weren’t in a plane crash, why do they think they had been? Did they plan this all themselves? What was it meant to accomplish? Are they seeking revenge for something, and does their victim deserve it? What could that person have done that was so bad to merit such a complex punishment - and was it truly bad or merely bad in their eyes? Suddenly everyone’s current motivations seem much murkier.

So my point is, if you take away the basic understanding of why these people are acting in certain ways in an incredibly uncertain situation, how can we safely assume that they’re inherently good or bad, regardless of how much they’ve shown themselves to be either since the crash? For all we know, Hurley could be the ultimate villain and Ben the ultimate hero. I suppose I just want to make sure I’m backing the “right” side.

H x

I totally agree with everything you’ve said, but I don’t think it’s necessarily as “simple” as that in this case.

No, in the case of Lost we have a lot of complexity and ambiguity - it is very unlike day to day living. Furthermore, we have multiple levels of empathy to employ. We empathasize with the characters, and the more we know of them the more we can understand their choices. But the characters themselves are also empathizing, or not, and that plays a role in how we judge the characters, too. I'm not saying our judgments are simple or correct, but rather that the process we employ to make those pronouncements is simple and robust, and quickly adapts to new information and new contexts as new frames of the show are peeled back and revealed.


However, I think we’re wrong to assume that we’ve got all the correct information we need to properly assess these characters. We still don’t know why they’re in this situation, and I still reckon the flashbacks aren’t an accurate depiction of what they’d experienced before waking up on the island...

Yes, at this point we should be entirely convinced that we don't know and can't judge. We can, however, imagine a number of different "ends" and their attendant "frameworks" and through those we can ascertain the moral entailments of each. Having done so, which framework yields the most "moral" results? Is there a scenario which will show that every character is a hero, and redeemed, and moral - if they so choose?

Because the loops have yet to be closed, because we don't know, we have an incredible amount of choice before us. How do we want the show to end? What intents and purposes would be served in the process? How we answer these questions may be quite illuminating.

Now it's probably true that I'm predisposed to view Lost in the particular light I do on account of my own experiences with epic mythology. Epic mythology, and the Hero's Journey... these are stories that never happened but are always happening. In myth, everything happens for a reason, and every character is an aspect of one's self. What this means is that there are no villains in myth. Rather, they are conspirators who are working for Fate to deliver the hero to where he or she needs to go for fulfillment.


So my point is, if you take away the basic understanding of why these people are acting in certain ways in an incredibly uncertain situation, how can we safely assume that they’re inherently good or bad, regardless of how much they’ve shown themselves to be either since the crash? For all we know, Hurley could be the ultimate villain and Ben the ultimate hero. I suppose I just want to make sure I’m backing the “right” side.

There are no sides. Root for everyone.

Yes... except that birth and death are essential parts of the equation. Your birth is your twin's death, and your death is your twin's birth. See, you're already dead, you just don't know it because you haven't remembered the future yet.

So time-traveling would have to do with which observing point one would choose to experience life from? In other words, what one chooses to remember?


We don't remember where we're going, and they don't remember how they got there.

Would you say this is necessary in order to experience life? Or is there a way to be in constant communication with your twin without too much confusion?



Oh! yes yes yes! Okay, so Kate is grilling Miles about "what she done", and this is MirrorKate who knows the End but doesn't know the Cause. Maybe she will have an opportunity to change the Causes such that the End is preserved and yet changed in some way. She would know whether the End is worth it... and if she's coming from the End of Humanity, she might be looking to change the picture by rearranging her Causes.

I'm getting mixed messages here. (and I'm saying that on a LOST discussion forum).

Are you saying that the end can be changed or cannot be changed?


The "one" I mean is the "pair" of twins, who normally don't meet but whose "continuity errors" (birth and death) connect them into a single loop. The loop gets knotted up, spliced, even mangled... when it passes through the twisty labyrinth of the Island.

So we are unnaturally spliced in two and the only way to survive is by holding on to each other's end, which creates this "continuity error"-the illusion of death and birth?

Not sure if you missed my second post where I admitted my mistake - or are you suggesting that some marriages are “a trial” as in “ordeal”!

Yeah, I saw that after posting!


So I’m struggling to work out whether Jack’s meant to be Ultimate Good (“Christ”) or Ultimate Bad (“anti-Christ”); or whether the clues are hinting more broadly at the idea of someone Good doing something very Bad, and vice versa. I just chucked the theory out there to see if anyone else could get a better handle on it because I’m failing miserably!

Yes, you’re absolutely right. I think that’s where I keep coming unstuck because I keep trying to assign absolute “good” or “bad” status to everyone, and it’s much more ambiguous or fluid than that, isn’t it?


I think one of the main intentions of the show is to make the lines between good and evil so thin, that the viewer is almost forced to explore the possibility of life lived/show perceived beyond these concepts. They're doing the same thing with time.


So we’ve been led to believe, even though Rousseau, Claire and Amy all successfully gave birth on the island, and Sun conceived on the island and later supposedly gave birth to a healthy baby girl. Surely you’d agree that something doesn’t add up here?

Maybe it only goes wrong when you both conceive and give birth there?



So many mirrors and lenses featured on the show - and I’m sure we can include our TV screens here too.

Yep!


I reckon that could be the real “Dharma Initiative” and it’s all been “Sawyer’s Long Con”.

There's this line from the FB of Whatever The Case May Be, that's been stuck in my head and I'm convinced it's crucial. At the bank:
Jason says: "This whole thing is the girl's idea" (meaning Kate). Next scene on the island, Jack gives Kate the toy airplane.
Jack: Is this it? Is this what you wanted?



Good and bad aren't properties that inhere within an individual. However, I do think these categories originate from the body, so it makes sense to make these kind of assignments.

Interesting. How do you mean they "originate from the body"?

So time-traveling would have to do with which observing point one would choose to experience life from? In other words, what one chooses to remember?

I'm not sure how much "choice" there is. It looks like at times the characters remember the past or the future, and the flipping between those twin states has something to do with mirrors, reflections, water, and rain. And death.


jane: We don't remember where we're going, and they don't remember how they got there.

theo: Would you say this is necessary in order to experience life? Or is there a way to be in constant communication with your twin without too much confusion?

It seems much easier to communicate with a mirror-twin on the Island. There is a price for this relationship, though, and I wonder if it's relinquishing one's "free will". If my mirror-twin (that is to say, my future self) tells me something, and I follow that path rather than making a different choice, my twin-relationship will be healthier. To take a different path is to effectively "kill" the future self who was communicating with me.


I'm getting mixed messages here. (and I'm saying that on a LOST discussion forum).

Are you saying that the end can be changed or cannot be changed?

I'm saying both.


So we are unnaturally spliced in two and the only way to survive is by holding on to each other's end, which creates this "continuity error"-the illusion of death and birth?

I don't know if the splice is natural or unnatural. I think the perception of "continuity error" comes from not holding on to each other's ends, and that may be a result of not seeing the Other Side.


theo: I think one of the main intentions of the show is to make the lines between good and evil so thin, that the viewer is almost forced to explore the possibility of life lived/show perceived beyond these concepts.

jane: Good and bad aren't properties that inhere within an individual. However, I do think these categories originate from the body, so it makes sense to make these kind of assignments.

theo: Interesting. How do you mean they "originate from the body"?

The body seeks a certain amount of homeostasis in order to survive and even flourish. For example, when we feel hungry, the body is saying that it needs more food for energy. The hunger "feels bad", and the food that makes it go away "feels good". When we talk about "good and evil", the conversation will usually turn to various examples of suffering as a way of describing that which is "bad". Suffering is also a product of the body; it is a feeling.

These feelings are then mapped to the "causes" of those feelings, and the feelings are transferred to the causes. So a drought is labeled "bad" - because it makes us suffer - and a bumper crop is called "good" because it feeds us well.

It's not that difficult to change these assignments through a shift in perspective, but that change from good to bad (and bad to good) will still follow the process of ascertaining what feelings will arise in those affected by whatever it is we seek to assign these sorts of judgments. If Ben hits me, and I feel pain, it's easy to say that Ben did something bad. And then Ben holds up his hand and shows me the killer mosquito he just squashed, and now I see Ben as good; I realize he just saved me from further suffering. So the assignment shifts back and forth, but the process for making the assignment still derives from how my body responds (or would respond).

Having been forced to explore life without these concepts, I've been led into recognizing how to use the concepts of good and evil more effectively, as well as identifying when those concepts do not serve me or others particularly well. The thing I've realized about them is that they are superordinate categories derived from emotions and empathy. Not unlike the category of furniture, for which we do not have a single basic image, but rather a mosaic of tables, couches, and chairs.

I'm not sure how much "choice" there is. It looks like at times the characters remember the past or the future, and the flipping between those twin states has something to do with mirrors, reflections, water, and rain. And death.

Right. Like when Charlie flipped the switch in the looking glass and the FFs started.

http://gallery.lost-media.com/displayimage-1291-326.html


It seems much easier to communicate with a mirror-twin on the Island. There is a price for this relationship, though, and I wonder if it's relinquishing one's "free will". If my mirror-twin (that is to say, my future self) tells me something, and I follow that path rather than making a different choice, my twin-relationship will be healthier. To take a different path is to effectively "kill" the future self who was communicating with me.

Well, if you know how to communicate with your future self, "killing" them would result in communicating with an "other" future self that is created once you make different choices...no?



I don't know if the splice is natural or unnatural. I think the perception of "continuity error" comes from not holding on to each other's ends, and that may be a result of not seeing the Other Side.

Hmm. I see.


So the assignment shifts back and forth, but the process for making the assignment still derives from how my body responds (or would respond).

Ok I hear ya.

The thing I've realized about them is that they are superordinate categories derived from emotions and empathy. Not unlike the category of furniture, for which we do not have a single basic image, but rather a mosaic of tables, couches, and chairs.

I have no idea what that means.

You're saying good/bad are superordinate categories which, according to Google, means superior...in relation to what? Do you mean that it's beyond our human nature not to categorize things as good/bad?

You completely lost me at the furniture. I mean, yes we don't have a single basic image, I understand that. But what does that have to do with the good/bad categories?

Thanks for your replies, I become a little drooling schoolgirl every time you post something. :biggrin:

Well, if you know how to communicate with your future self, "killing" them would result in communicating with an "other" future self that is created once you make different choices...no?

Well, look at it from the perspective of the Other. If I'm coming back to myself, and I give myself information that kills me, I'd hope it'd be for a good reason. On the other hand, if I don't want to wink out of existence, then I wouldn't say anything. Perhaps at the mirror of death, I'd have the perspective to see how I could still get there by a different, more joyous and fulfilling path?

In general, I'd want to trust my future self.


I have no idea what that means.

You're saying good/bad are superordinate categories which, according to Google, means superior...in relation to what? Do you mean that it's beyond our human nature not to categorize things as good/bad?

You completely lost me at the furniture. I mean, yes we don't have a single basic image, I understand that. But what does that have to do with the good/bad categories?

Not "superior", but rather a level of abstraction away from direct experience.

A "basic-level" category can be represented by a single image, and these are the first categories we learn as children. Cat, chair, tree, girl... these are formed by the images of our direct experiences.

And then when we get to four or five, we start learning other *types* of categories. "Subordinate" categories are more specific examples of the "basics". We learn that there are golden retrievers and dachsunds, both types of dogs. Roses and daisies, both flowers. And so on and so on.

In the other direction, away from specificity, we learn about "superordinate" categories. These are categories that are formed by grouping together other basics. Chairs and tables, these are both basics (we have a single image for them), but then we learn that we can group them together as "furniture". The category of furniture is a sort of gestalt category. So we see an axis of categorization, polarized by specificity and generality.

I wonder if the categories of "good" and "bad" are gestalt categories of various feelings. We don't have basic images for either. These categories function differently in the brain than other superordinate categories, because they draw in so many if not all of our memories, all of which have been "marked" by our emotions. Because good and bad are so encompassing of all we know, and because so much of human experience is shared among people due to sharing the same embodiment, they seem absolute, because they appear to color everything.

The most general category is the All-Encompassing Category. It is from this category that we conceive of The Universe, and God. Omigosh, look at that.... the All-Encompassing Category. This description is a reflection of what metaphor we use to conceptualize "category". It is that of a Circle in classical Western thought.

But that's not how we *actually* categorize. Our categories are more like hubs, with spokes radiating out from them. (An apt description for the brain structures, too.) Rather than circles, we think in stars, like the mark on Juliet's back. The category of All isn't an unbound circle, but rather a net... or a tapestry.

Well, look at it from the perspective of the Other. If I'm coming back to myself, and I give myself information that kills me, I'd hope it'd be for a good reason. On the other hand, if I don't want to wink out of existence, then I wouldn't say anything. Perhaps at the mirror of death, I'd have the perspective to see how I could still get there by a different, more joyous and fulfilling path?

I'm guessing that the parents of most, if not all, of the main characters have had this experience. I just re-watched The Brig, and Anthony Cooper practically begged John to put him out of his misery with Ben's knife. I'll bet that this was not because he wanted to die so much as that he had some 'insider information' (possibly from his own mirror twin), and wanted his death to spare his son some future suffering. It turned out, however, that his death was used to ease the suffering of Sawyer, instead. Perhaps, as Ben and Eloise have hinted, the surface of the mirror is a bit cloudy, and island visitors are only able to see vague shapes rather than sharp images of the other side. Christian, Eloise and Widmore also seem to have made their own sacrifices, and I'm wondering whether they may have had a nudge or two from their mirror twin along the way.

Just watched this http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0906734/ and made me think of this thread.