(Group 1: S.O.S) Being, Doing, Knowing
+7 7 Votes
Rate it:
By jazprof
- (Group 1: S.O.S) Being, Doing, Knowing
- Created: Nov 3, 2007
- Last updated: Aug 14, 2008
- After episode: 3.22: Through The Looking Glass
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
I think being and doing also connect to different ways of knowing something, and the two ways are suggested by the allusion to the story of Abraham and Issac (in Rose going to see Issac for her cure) and in Locke eating an Apollo bar as he tries to solve the puzzle, and in the page the puzzle is written on.
— jazprof
The division between being and doing is pretty obviously drawn attention to in the episode with the conflict between Rose and Bernard. The other plots also revolve around “doing”—Locke trying to figure out the puzzle of the glow in the dark diagram and Jack deciding to get Walt back (to Ana-Lucia “I don’t know about you but I’m tired of waiting”). I think being and doing also connect to different ways of knowing something, and the two ways are suggested by the allusion to the story of Abraham and Issac (in Rose going to see Issac for her cure) and in Locke eating an Apollo bar as he tries to solve the puzzle, and in the page the puzzle is written on.
In the story of Abraham & Issac, Abraham puts his faith in God as to knowing what is right and wrong. When God stops him from killing Issac and has him offer a ram in his place, Abraham names the place “The Lord Will Provide.” This sounds very like Rose’s attitude voiced several times in the episode. When Bernard asks why she just accepts the food dropping from the sky rather than question it or be curious about it she replies that she was raised never to question her blessings. In the flashback, when Bernard is getting ready to propose (doing), he isn’t noticing the view of Niagra Falls and Rose remarks “What does God have to do to get your attention?” And finally at the end when Bernard keeps asking her how she knows she’s been cured, she repeats that she knows (without rational explanation) and then “Trust me, I know.” That same division between an acceptance of what is rather than a striving to find things out or solve problems is also suggested by the allusion to Apollo. Nietsche (see Fred’s not gone yet, lol) distinguished between two modes of being, the Apollonian and the Dionysian. The Apollonian is based on reason and analysis, it focuses on the individual as a source of knowledge, and expresses itself in an interest in forms and structures (like building S.O.S. markers). The Dionysian mode is one of enthusiasm and ectasy, it submerges individuality into a greater whole, and expresses itself most clearly in music.
Bernard building the SOS sign has a management problem—he’s telling everyone what to do—everything revolves around him and his interests. (to Jin: “You’re doing it all wrong”) Locke also becoming self absorbed as he tries to analyze the meaning (aquire knowledge) of what the symbols mean. He is drawing the symbols on a page out of “Concert de Mademoiselle Garcia” by Musset (according to Lostpedia). I looked at a partially translated page—it seems to be Musset’s recording of his reactions to a concert, followed by a poem inspired by the concert. So we have analytic symbols (Apollonian) drawn over an account of music and poetry (Dionysian)—suggesting that Locke would have better luck figuring out what this meant by using a less rational and less individual approach. The account of the concert I actually found hard to read—either it’s the translation or Musset’s style itself may be a bit on the irrational side. But here’s an opening line that I thought was telling, followed by some bits from the poem which also connect up with Lost in interesting ways:
“the idea of seeing reappear for a moment beings that we have loved the most,”
“Two children born yesterday know more than we do.
O young hearts filled with ancient poetry,
Welcome, children loved by gods!
You have the same age and even genius.
The sweet clarity be blessed
What you bring into our eyes!…
Who was born at the same time.
Your mother earth is an attentive Muse
Who on the eve of sacred fire forever.
Obey the god without fear who inspires you.
Ignore, if possible, that we are talking about you.
These complaints, these agreements, these tears, fresh smile,
All your treasures, donnez-les us:
Sing, children, let us say.”
A few more thoughts about Bernard & Rose—Bernard says “You’re saying we’re lost, doesn’t mean we’re lost” applies to the two of them on the island. And he takes her to a faith healer—when in fact it’s his faithe that needs repair. Finally, she keeps a secret from him and apologizes for it. The need to do creates secrets—knowledge divided instead of held generally. The same thing happens between Jack & Kate.
Key characters
| Short Name | Full Name | Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bernard | Bernard Nadler | 2.19, 2.7 | 131 |
| John | John Locke | 3.3, 2.17, 1.4, 1.19, 3.13, 3.19, 4.11, & 3” href=”/episodes/theres-no-place-home-parts-2-3/”>4.13 | 1248 |
| Rose | Rose Nadler | 2.19 | 154 |
Key episodes
| # | Title | Aired | Central character | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.19 | S.O.S. | 4-12-2006 | Rose, Bernard | 102 |
Rose is like a passive Locke. Aware of the Island’s/God’s graceful wonder, yet unlike Locke she does not seek to exploit it, or further her knowledge of it, or even question it. She, as you say, just knows.
The central mystery of the Island - where it’s power comes from - may never be revealed. In this, I think, the creators could make it God-like, inviting a viewer to form his/her own opinion; providing material to support a scientific or divine explanation for both.
I won’t lie and pretend I understood the poem stuff. I’m more a man of science, you know? Mr. Apollonian.
+1
Off on a tangent with another question: What exactly was Rose going to do at the end of Season 3 if Jack had managed to get them rescued? Forget all about the pledge she and Bernard made at the end of S.O.S.? I don’t have an answer or much of an opinion, just wondered what other takes on this may be.
Would it be fair to say Hurley also tends to follow the Dionysian approach? He could give a flip that the washer and dryer were not your typical avocado green, circa 1970’s models.
Hurely is given lemons and makes lemonade. He makes a golf course and cons Sawyer into understanding that just being nice has it’s benefits (even if he may never get the Korean vote).
Here’s the flip side…
The food drop made me think of a part in Watership Down. Hazel, and his fellow Apollonians, while en route to a new life encounter a warren of rabbits that live on a farmer’s land.
The farmer provided food for them, mostly stale vegetables from his table. He kept them fat and complacent. He also had snares set up around his entire farm.
The rabbits from that warren also compose a dark poems one of which there leader recited for the newcomers. It was like a cult of death. They simply accepted their fate and didn’t feel a need to question.
John seems to teeter between the two approaches.
Top notch jaz.
Oh, and this is for Stippo…
“There’s a difference between knowing the path and walking the path”.
Jaz good stuff. SOS was for me quite a strange episode. For starters I can’t believe no one actually thought of making a sign before.
Many of the people on the island seem to have accepted their fate at this point. At times they talk about being rescued etc, but mostly they just passively get on with things. With notable exceptions of course; Jack, Bernard, Sayid, Desmond. It would be a interesting to draw up a list of who would want to stay and who to go!
AC makes an excellent point. Is Rose now happy to leave the island or have she and Bernard just agreed to help the other survivors?
+1
JazzPhilosopher, I truly enjoyed the comparisons of the Appolonian and Dionysian approach to the characters of Rose and Bernard.
Although, Lost as stated by the producers of the show, is comprised of science, pseudo-science and the paranormal, one cannot ignore the religious and philosophical elements of the story. +1
Hello. (I really enjoy your posts!)
Abraham acts not out of knowing (regardless of the rational knowing / irrational knowing distinction / application you make) but out of faith.
Abraham makes this mad leap into unknowing, in “Fear and Trembling”, away from everything he knows.
In reading the above post I think that you are trying to make Rose into the Abraham figure.
I think that on the facts Bernard would have to be the Abraham, he places his faith in Rose, Rose has no doubt.
But then again my reading and implying of Kierkegaard could be wrong or inappropriate.
AC about Rose at the end of S3 I wasn’t sure either, but when Jack says “No one gets left behind” and she replies “If you say live together die alone to me, Jack, I’m gonna punch you in your face” (Hah!) I thought maybe an underlying meaning was that she did eventually intend to be left behind.
Hey, katalyst, that interpretation of the story got me thinking of a couple things—Ben asking Locke to sacrifce his father (a kind of inverse Abraham/Issac story) and Ben saying that God doesn’t see the island. And then Abraham and Issac came up again in Catch 22—but there Desmond doesn’t sacrifice Charlie. Maybe Des is the beginning of that same kind of change? Maybe he’s the means for God to start seeing the island?
Oh and Ben’s look—that was fantastic! The way his face slowly changed from expressionless to that knowing evil grin—I was thinking about all the conversations about him as the trickster.
Heh, on Lostpedia it’s the image that symbolizes the episode: http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Image:2x19_henry.JPG
And here’s the SOS final image for anyone who missed it: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4b/LOST219.jpg/250px-LOST219.jpg
retro—thanks (and thanks for bringing up SK!) You make a very good point in regard to Rose never being uncertain while at the end it is Bernard who makes the leap of faith. Although the way I’d interpret certainty/faith/knowledge using Kierkegaard’s definitions is that all human knowledge is based on uncertainty and requires a leap of faith, but that there is a kind of knowledge which accepts that uncertainty and acknowledges the leap taken—that kind of knowledge we usually call faith; and there’s another kind of knowledge that tries to be objective and doesn’t acknowledge the leap—the kind of knowledge more usually associated with science. In other words I do think Rose’s faith is a kind of knowing, and like all knowing there is doubt that underlies it. Bernard in this episode is acting like, well, a lesser version of Jack (as drawn attention to by the Doctor/Dentist line Rose has) but is eventually won over to Rose’s pov. I think it’s interesting that the episode ends with “These Arms of Mine” playing and everyone seems to have a companion (Sawyer has Vincent, lol)—except for Locke who has just denied to Ana-Lucia that it is “his button.” (He and the hatch are no longer an item.) Jack and Kate actually come close to reestablishing a bond but are interrupted by the appearance of Michael—which Jack has in some ways caused by his “doing”—his current obsession with conflict with the others and getting Walt & Michael back.
Forgot to add—“Two children born yesterday know more than we do.”
Alexandra and Aaron—names referencing Hellenic and Hebraic traditions.