P.D. Ouspensky, Gurdjieff and “See you on the other side.”
+1 21 Votes
Rate it:
By Katydid
- P.D. Ouspensky, Gurdjieff and “See you on the other side.”
- Created: Nov 10, 2007
- Last updated: Aug 14, 2008
- After episode: 2.17: Lockdown
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
Gurdjieff: “A man does not see the real world. The real world is hidden from him by the wall of imagination. He lives in sleep. He is asleep. Only by beginning to remember himself does a man really awaken. And then all surrounding life acquires for him a different aspect. He sees that it is the life of sleeping people, a life in sleep. All that men say, all that they do, they say and do in sleep. How can one awaken? How can one escape this sleep? These questions are the most important, the most vital that can ever confront a man.”
— Katydid
P.D. Ouspensky, author and philosopher, student of Greek-American mystic Gurdjieff, furthered a theory of Gurdjieff’s that (in a nutshell) we are all doomed (depends on your perspective, I guess) to repeat our lives over and over and over again, making only minor changes each time in the pursuit of ‘getting it right’. If one were to continually make the same mistakes, without learning from them, one would eventually fade out, die off, perish, cease to exist. He wrote a novel, “The strange life of Ivan Osokin” that presents this theory.
Because I truly believe names are a big theme in Lost, I submit that anagramatical derivatives of the name Ivan Osokin are Invasion and Avion. Avion is french for “airplane”. Airplane Invasion, anyone? I know it’s a stretch but it is kind of cool.
Of course Ivan Osokin is not a name in Lost but he is the embodiment of the theory of Eternal Return.
Locke says to his father, right before the kidney transplant “see you on the other side’, and Nadia says to Sayid ‘See you in the next life’ (or something to that effect). I believe both of these statements allude to the fact that the characters have met before and will meet again in other lifetimes. Many believe that Jack woke up on the island after the crash, not for the first time. Desmond begs for the chance to go back one more time to get it right. Ouspensky’s conclusion in ‘Ivan Osokin’ is that even if we knew what was going to happen, we would almost certainly make the same choices again, that it would take incredible strength and discipline to avoid the same pitfalls as before. I know that most people think that if they only knew they would do it differently but to those people I would ask you to the read the book and tell me if you still think that way. Every choice we make has far-reaching consequences and to undo one choice could lead to the undoing of other better outcomes. Think of Claire - to avoid the crash, she would have given up her child for adoption. If she knew then what she knows now…..Of course, you might say that she could have chosen to raise Aaron herself in Australia, there was no need to get on the plane but if she hadn’t she would never have met Jack and had a chance at a relationship with a brother she didn’t know she had. If Sayid has chosen to go to LA on the earlier flight , he would have forsaken the opportunity to bury his almost-a-suicide-bomber friend, whose death caused him guilt. John might have chosen to stay off that flight - and never walked again.
Characters like Boone could represent those who have faded out because they failed to grow in their choices. Locke seems to be at peace with Boone’s death, possibly because he understood that Boone wasn’t able to truly learn from his mistakes or poor choices. Or conversely, Locke sees that Boone is being given the chance to start over and learn from his bad decisions, as Boone seems to have done near the end of his life (re: Shannon). Either way, perhaps John is not overly emotional about Boone’s death as he understands that we are never really gone and that he too will see Boone on the other side.
I think this also ties in with the ‘multiverse’ theory of quantum physics, in that all choices made, and all choices not made, exist simultaneously.
I’m hoping this sparks a discussion as I have tonnes more to say on the subject but I’m pressed for time right now. I’ll try to update over the next few days and give some more background. I see a connection here to the other philosophers, Locke, Rousseau, Jung although I don’t think my guys are as well known. Looking forward to comments!
Update: Ouspensky’s book: A New Model of the Universe (from wikipedia) - This last work introduced the idea of esotericism, a belief that there exist centers in the world where ancient esoteric knowledge and wisdom are not only preserved, but taught to initiates.
Sound like the island to me.
Key episodes
| # | Title | Aired | Central character | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.8 | Flashes Before Your Eyes | 2-14-2007 | Penny | 233 |
Similar theories
| Title | Author | Cmnts | Votes | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alternate realities | smc | 2 | 5 | +5 |
Good reasearch! well done love :):):)
Katy, I’ve been leaning away from the time loop/do over theories lately, but your theory is excellent!!!!! +1 for almost bringing me back.
Actually, I’d love it to be the answer. I picture Jack and Kate ending up back on the island before the crash and just sitting on the beach at sunset…… Ah well, we’ll just have to wait and see!
Thanks Annie. I’ll make it a mission to bring you back all the way. Another thing I was thinking about - that John is always saying stuff like, that wasn’t supposed to happen, you weren’t supposed to do that, etc. It’s like he has awareness that he’s in a do-over and the free will of others is messing him up.
As far as Jack and Kate: well, I’m a fan of Jack (although he makes it hard to love him sometimes) and while I do wish for he and Kate to get it together, I would hate to see Kate become a ‘project’ for Jack. I think that from what we’ve seen of Kate, she’s got the tools to fix herself. I don’t think Jack is capable (yet) of suppressing the urge to ‘fix’. What Kate might need is healing, not fixing (and NO, I’m not referring to that kind of healing) and so far Sawyer is demonstrating that he is capable of accepting Kate for exactly who she is and was.
I’m reasonably pro-loop (without a caveat of cynicism about the whole being rather silly to defend from appearing foolish and gullible!) and this stuff here is great. I am of the inclination that the loop theory does support a notion that they are supposed to do it differently, however. That each loop represents a fresh run at getting everything right for one particular end result. I think Ben’s in on it - and I think Locke has some inkling of it (hence all his talk of how things are “supposed” to be).
I think you’re right to break this down and explore it fully. Desmond alone would fulfil an entire essay on the subject of being doomed to repeat mistakes. +1
AC - I think we’re still on the same page. The theory of Eternal Return posits the notion that each new life, or rebirth, would offer a change a getting it right. If you got it wrong last time then you would have to do something differently to get it right the next time. What is really interesting to me is the idea that all of the Losties might be ‘returning’ to make different choices that result in an end that is predetermined to be the right end by the Others? Ben? I think you are right - Ben’s might not only be in on it but may be ultimately controlling events to fit that end. If this is worth thinking about then it’s worth considering whether or not this end is good or evil and who the good guys really are.
Your theory is way over my head. I thought I saw something I could comment on intelligently, but then, upon re-reading, I realized that you were talking about esoteric knowledge, not erotic knowledge.
Damn my dslyleixc eyes!
Good and original post katydid. +1
+1
Considering Lockeko’s previous opinions on similar theories, I’m delighted. And honoured.
@WillsDad - uh, okay.
Katy I think this is interesting subject matter indeed. I am not adverse to the idea of the do over at all BUT I do see a potential problem with Gurdjieff’s theory.
If one were to continually make the same mistakes, without learning from them, one would eventually fade out, die off, perish, cease to exist
I don’t understand why we/they would die off if given infinite chances to repeat their past. Um I guess what I am saying is who or what decides when we/they have had enough chances and should die out. Does that make sense?
Great discussion everyone! +1
Katy great idea and connection. Maybe the whispers are the people who faded away? (hmmm though we’ve seen some of them die, like Duckett and Boone.) “Ivan”-John, Jack (maybe James)—aren’t they all versions of “John”?
“Only by beginning to remember himself does a man really awaken. And then all surrounding life acquires for him a different aspect”
That sounded like Desmond, but could be Jack as well in the pilot?
Missus and Jaz - I hear what you are both saying. Boone I think is a good example as is Shannon. Do you think the story of Lost could be told without them? I think it could. They were interesting, no doubt, but how much have they really grown, before the island or on it. So think of the Losties reliving over and over the same life, crash and all, maybe Boone wouldn’t show up on the next go round. Maybe he would show up a few more times with a lesser role each time until eventually the story is told without him. You couldn’t say the same of others. The story can’t be told without Locke but he’s shown us that he grows from his experiences (and he probably has a heads up anyway).
good job Katy, I like your theory and your research. I really like it b.c t his is not your traditional time loop theory. In fact, its kind of bleak in that if true then everyone is doomed to always make the same mistakes. Maybe thats what the numbers are really an attempt to change. I also like your example about Boone and Shannon. And if they are gone, someone else will have to make their contributions, perhaps making that persom more important. I mean what if next time Boone is a doctor not a lifeguard. Maybe then he plays Jack’s role and Jact has a lesser role. There are just so many variables I don’t think it would be exactly the same everytime, but I do think all the major accomplishments would still be ocmpleted.
Katy, Very nice theory and well researched! +1
I absolutely subscribe to the notion, that we do indeed repeat our life lessons, until we succeed at learning and overcoming them. Otherwise we are doomed to repeating them, until we get it right, in this life cycle or the next. “The Losties” illustrate and epitomize this! And, I feel it is part of the bigger picture to the story line.
“If we do not learn from our mistakes, then history is doomed to repeat itself”, or something like that!
Katy, Very nice theory and well researched! +1
I absolutely subscribe to the notion, that we do indeed repeat our life lessons, until we succeed at learning and overcoming them. Otherwise we are doomed to repeating them, until we get it right, in this life cycle or the next. “The Losties” illustrate and epitomize this! I feel it is an integral part of the story line.
“If we do not learn from the past, then history is doomed to repeat itself”, or something along those lines!
Good post and awesome discussion… I love you guys. :-)
There is a troll “working” today; he is taking legitimate theories, like yours, and flagging them as “offensive” and sending them to the dump. It has happened to me 5 times today (I keep pulling it out of the dump, only to get re-dumped).
If this happens to you, all you have to do is “edit” you theory, and “save.” and it will return to the regular rotation.
I hate these guys.
(BTW, has anybody considered the fact that if this thing does turn out to be a time loop [oh, please god, please JJ, say it ain’t so] there could be a season 7 that looks just like season 1 but with minor differences. Season 8 could look like season 2, etc. And we would probably watch it)
The trolls are killing us. If you want to help do something, please check this:
http://lost-theories.com/theories/2007/nov/14/turn-key-argument-boycott/