(Group 1: “Live Together, Die Alone) Knowing vs. Loving
+7 7 Votes
Rate it:
By jazprof
- (Group 1: “Live Together, Die Alone) Knowing vs. Loving
- Created: Nov 24, 2007
- Last updated: Aug 14, 2008
- After episode: 3.22: Through The Looking Glass
- Status: Current
- Flag this theory:
Love is what saves Des. And Love gives him the courage to sacrifice himself to save everyone else—not the knowledge of whether the button is real or not.
— jazprof
Overall I see Locke’s need to know in that rational, puzzle-solving sense reach its conclusion here. A couple of episodes back I was using the Apollonian/Dionysian division to talk about Locke and Rose and I’m using it again here to talk about Locke and Desmond and also about a development in Desmond’s character. Briefly the Apollonian is knowledge based on following a linear chain of cause and effect, of rationality and logic, of empirical evidence, whereas the Dionysian is intuitive, emotional, more tied to to impulsive and emotional responses (and to drinking or other altered states of consciousness). With that division in mind, I wanted to start with fitting in a lot of the allusions made in the episode.
I saw on Lostpedia a suggestion of why the statue is four-toed that I hadn’t seen anywhere before and it makes a lot of sense to me. The leg may be the bottom of the Egyptian God Bes whose bottom half is cat-like (possibly a lion) and therefore would only have four toes. Bes is the god who protects and cares for pregnant women, children, and families.
The pregnancy tie-in is obvious and there’s also the connection to cats that I want to get back to in a second. First though I wanted to look at the allusion to “Turn of the Screw”—the book in which the failsafe key is hidden by Inman. In that novel, a governess becomes obsessed with finding out the truth behind the appearance of ghostly beings to the two children she cares for. She becomes so obsessed that she stops thinking about the safety of the children and thinks only about finding whether these supernatural events are real or not. Eventually one of the children dies—and his death is very much seen as her responsibility rather than the work of the ghosts. This is also suggested by the title as a turn of the screw is literally turning the screws of a torture device to extract a confession. The governess has been torturing the children to get at the truth rather than protecting them.
Desmond at the end of the episode is turning the key—not turning the screw. Locke is the one who has been behaving like the governess—putting knowledge before human life. Desmond acts more like Bes—protecting lives by being willing to sacrifice himself to the unknown.
Connection to cats—Primarily to Amira’s cat in the episode in which Sayid is held prisoner by her husband. The cat is tortured in a box. She frees and cares for the cat and forgives it when it scratches her as she knows what it is to be tortured. And she similarly forgives Sayid, Contrast that relationship with the Schrodinger’s cat experiment which many have linked to the show—there the observer does not empathize with the cat but determines its fate (life/death?) through observation. Again you have a contrast between an emotional response which puts life first and a rational, controlled (and hierarchical) one that puts knowledge ahead of everything.
Boxes—Charles Widmore greets Desmond with two boxes as he comes out of jail (another box). One box has his past, one has his future. Boxing up time—fixing it—categorizing it. This is the linear and causal approach of the rationalist. Once the Swan implodes, Des’s past and future boxes get blasted open and their contents thrown up and scattered. I also noticed that the “past box,” the letters from Des that Penny never received, is the same strategy Susan uses to separate Walt and Michael.
Change in Des’s character and parallel to Jack. Des in the scene with Penny argues that he’s not running from something anymore but running to his honor. This conversation recalls the one with Brother Campbell in which Campbell tells him he needs to figure out what he’s running toward. His focus has changed from what was behind to what lies in front of him—yet he’s still running in a straight line (linear causality). Contrast this with the real life David Hume who suggested that causality is an association our mind makes between events rather than an actual cause-effect relationship. The real Hume also differes from his fellow empiricists like Hobbes in suggesting that moral decisions are based not just on egoism, but also on our sympathy and identification with others.
One contrast that’s set up to causality—suggesting that synchronicity is what’s guiding events instead—is that for both Des and Sayid the boat comes at just the moment when they need it.
Another sign of Desmond’s linearity is his goal of saving the ending of “Our Mutual Friend” until the end of his own life—as if his life is following a straightforward narrative structure—or as the guard in prison remarks—this will only work “as long as you know when you’re going to die.”
The beginning of Des losing that linearity I see in a scene which parallels him with Jack. Inman remarks on Des’s shaving—telling him that he should “let go.” In this same sequence, Inman attempts to leave on the boat and tells Des “Screw the button…who knows if it’s even real.” (turning the screw vs. turning the key, knowledge of what is real). Similarly Christian tells Jack to “let it go.” The sign in both cases that the men “let go”—the first step letting go of the self—is to stop shaving. Des has reached this point by this episode—also the fact that on the boat he just went in circles and is now drinking heavily—he’s left that straight path. That’s the same point Jack is at in the Flashforward. (The fact that the Others wear fake beards—another symbol of them “cheating”?)
Last allusion—”Our Mutual Friend”—there are two romances between men of the upper class and women of the lower class. Also both men are transformed by a near drowning experience—one happens at the beginning of the book, one towards the end. In the first case, the near drowning allows the man to literally adopt a new identity, and in the second it allows the man to transform into someone capable of love. The key goes from being hid in “Turn of the Screw” to “Our Mutual Friend” (mutuality—”see you in another life brutha”). The key replaces the letter in which Penny tells Des—”all we really need to survive is one person who truly loves us.”
Love is what saves Des. And Love gives him the courage to sacrifice himself to save everyone else—not the knowledge of whether the button is real or not.
Key characters
| Short Name | Full Name | Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|
| Desmond | Desmond David Hume | 2.23, 3.17, 4.5 | 860 |
| 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 |
Key episodes
| # | Title | Aired | Central character | Theories |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.23 | Live Together, Die Alone | 5-24-2006 | Desmond | 323 |
Key events
| Theme | Relevant Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|
| Four Toed Statue | 205 | |
| Libby Gives Desmond A Boat | 139 |
Key locations
| Theme | Relevant Episodes | Theories |
|---|---|---|
| The Swan station | 2.20, 2.23, 2.14, 2.17, 2.1, 2.2, 1.11, 3.3, 3.8 | 471 |
Nice Turn Of The Screw parallels with Locke - I never knew that stuff. I do believe, however, that Our Mutual Friend was selected because a real, famous person did the same thing; they saved Our Mutual Friend as the last thing to read before they died. I wish I could remember who it was - but Lindelhof has happily admitted he stole the idea from this real life person.
How you manage to get beards into a Lost theory and have it make sense is to be applauded. +1
My you have been busy. I hope you had a good Thanksgiving jazz…. and here I thought I had had enough on my plate.
Here’s a little anecdote about cats and dogs (we can’t forget Vincent)…
sA person feeds, houses, and loves their cat…The cat thinks, “I must be a god”.
A person feeds, houses, and loves their dog… The dog thinks, “They must be a god”.
What intrigues me about LOST is the characters’ decisions given their circumstances. Some seem to arrive at a decision regarding their “luck” much more quickly like Rose or even Hurley (make the most of it).
Others take awhile and are a work in progress (i.e. Sawyer, Jack, Locke, etc…) but Locke seems to have “locked” on to the intuitive now (following his gut) in a big way while Jack isn’t listening to his natural reaction (man of science).
Sweet, thought provoking, and as always… fantastic jaz.
Bill Murray (Ghost Busters) “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together… mass hysteria!”
Wouldn’t it be an excellent twist if the box Amiras cat was tortured in was a box manufactured by Lockes box company?
Hurley owned it. ;)
I love you guys. :-)
Hey Kat, just started BF Skinners “About Behaviourism” today, and he makes the exact same point. Excellent. +1 Jaz, I just love these detailed theories, they save me so much reading time. Cheers!
That is the kind of literary analysis you find in a decent university. Quite nice.
Jazzie, I love the parallels drawn with respect to Locke, as AC points out, as well as the literary references. Great work! Big +1
You know that I am a firm believer in the effects of Causality and Retro-Causality, and specifically how it seems to apply to Desmond. I feel this is what the writers could be referencing, in terms of changing the Valenzetti Equation. It’s one plausible explanation, of many.
Leave it to KittyKat to reference “Little Dorritt”. Nice one!
Thanks for the kind words and additions all.
Yup Q, I am a prof (though I won’t speak to the quality of the institution).
And as zee resident LT goateed zycho-analyst I do feel zat I must bring up zee beards whenever possible (of course, Herr Freud vould haff zumping to zay about zee female mit der goatee—but I zay—sometimes a cigar ist just a schmoke).
Miss katinskaya—the writers do seem to have a penchant for Dickens (“Tale of Two Cities” is next). I can see some general tie-ins with Little Dorrit—I think the opening of the book says something about there being a “prison-taint” on everything (it’s very depressing overall). And I can see a particular tie-in to Naomi’s arrival in that there’s a kind of “Catch 22” in the way the debtor’s prison operates: one gets put into the debtor’s prison for failure to pay one’s bills, but while in the debtor’s prison you can’t work so you can’t ever pay the bills off—therefore you can never get out of the prison. And there might be a connection to Ben now that I think of it—there’s this manipulative woman who is wheel-chair bound (a psychosomatic inability to walk based on her guilt). She is supposed to be the mother of the main character (Arthur Clennam) but it turns out that Arthur is the illegitimate child of her husband and another woman. Sort of like Ben and Alex (plus the wheelchair connection and possibly that Ben’s guilt has something to do with his tumor? )