His whole lifes a faliure [Archive]

Jimothy - Dude!

02-15-07, 05:42 PM

How many of the 815's lives has he saved? How many of them has he helped out along the way? I suppose you could argue that EVERYTHING ultimately ends in misery, because eventually everyone dies one way or another.

Success is what you make of it. We can't all have perfect glamorous jobs, there's a lot of regular working joes out there. Locke strikes me as a guy who's had a hard life growing up, not much of a formal education, that has done the best with what he had. He's got a lot of diverse knowledge about things, I'd contend it's mostly self-taught.

Nobody's life is perfect. I'll bet we could focus a microscope on some dark time in your own life, and come up with a fair bit of misery.

Heh. These days, that's practically normal! :)

He's achieving his ambition right now, serving a valuable role on the island.

Why is that something to be ashamed of?

Or that? Sounds like you've got some of your own issues, Jimothy.

BS. If you go to the store with me, and a drunk driver hits our car and kills you, did I cause your death? Please.

Everyone's indecisive, everyone makes mistakes. Locke's normal.

That was dumb, and never really made sense to me. I feel like the writers twisted the character into doing that, in order to serve their plot. But so be it, he did it. He made a mistake. Of course, he was tricked into it by Smokey and Benry, and he admitted he was wrong, and cleaned up his own mess afterwards, but I guess that doesn't score any points in your book, eh?

That's garbage. He saved Jack's life, saved Desmond's life, Walt's life, helped Charlie kick drugs, found the hatch, was immeasurable help to all of the 815s in supplying food, and has been successful in any number of other ways.

I would agree with this to a certain extent, especially after tonight's episode. Locke has admitted to several of the 815s that he believes Eko was killed by the Island (Smokey). As such, he's got to be wondering if his faith in the Island is misplaced. We'll see where he goes from here, I'm sure it will be interesting. :)

Bah. Did you ever? Looks to me like Locke is currently right on track where he should be. Will he make more mistakes in the future? Sure, but everyone does.

Locke does what he believes is in the best interests of the 815s as a whole. Those motives are what I have faith in. :)

But he's not happy. He's wanted to achieve more his whole life through expeditions e.t.c. So in his eyes, he is unsuccessful.

True, but this is to the extreme. We have all had low points in our life, but rarelly to the extent of it eating up years after years of your life. Lockes dad was into the show by the writers to represent Lockes weakness IMO

He lost his marraige because of his dad, and thus because of his weakness.

Is he serving a valuable role? In the early days granted. But now when it comes down to it, his role of the island is small. He has never successfully intregated into the group, and he seem s to spend most of his time fighting personal battles.

Not to be ashmamed of, but stil represnts the jist of weakness in Lockes life. They wouldn't have made the character of Jack Handicaped would they?

That one was a just a tip bit :nanabobo:

Ok I think I worded that wrong, he didn't directly cause the death, but he did indirectly I'd say. He woke Boone up at the crack of dawn, led him a drug plane that he was convinced was the 'key to unlocking the island' (another one of Lockes crazy moments of irrational belief, got Boone to climb up and Boone fell and died. He also failed to communiate with Jack after the accident, instead opting to kneal on the hatch and shout 'WHY' over and over again, nice one Locke :D

Quite a big mistake to make though, surely someone who is he mesiah of the island shouldn't be making such mistakes! When has Locke not been mistaken?

Fair play on the earlier stuff, I can't deny that. Although, was finding the hatch a good thing?

At the start I did, yes

Naps

02-16-07, 05:05 AM

Finally somebody else who doesn't think that Locke has all the answers. Locke's indirectly caused the deaths of Shannon, Libby, Ana Lucia, Steve, (maybe Artz but we'll let that slide cuz it was hilarious). And directly caused Boones death (not only by sending him into the plane when he knew he would get hurt, but also by lying to jack about the type of injury).

Shannon - With Boone dead, she acted completely out of character and was irrational. Had Boone been alive, she wouldn't have gone all depressed and chased ghost Walt, leading to her death.

Ana Lucia/Libby - After teaching Michael how to shoot a gun, Locke also didn't tell Jack that Ana Lucia, a person who is well known to have a vengence problem, that she was attacked by Ben. Not only that, Locke left her ALONE with the person who attacked her. Nice. Because of this Ana and libby got killed.

Steve- Bad plan from the start, making little outposts to combat an enemy that he knows nothing about. They should've dug in at the caves and kept everyone together.

Hodgepodge

02-17-07, 12:30 AM

Jimothy - Dude!, try not to use different color text when replying to multiple posts. If you look at SgtDraino's reply, you'll notice we have the capabilities to quote several posts for one reply. Just click on the "+ icon in the lower right corner for every person you want to quote.

sgtdraino

02-17-07, 04:13 AM

But he's not happy. He's wanted to achieve more his whole life through expeditions e.t.c. So in his eyes, he is unsuccessful.

Blah! a rainbow of fruit flavors! Are you used to posting on aol message boards, Jimothy? You don't really need all those colors here, this board's quote software works.

Sometimes we view ourselves as successful, sometimes unsuccessful. Toward the end of season 2, obviously Locke did view his life as being unsuccessful. But that's history. I think he's back on track now. I think he's doing what he thinks he was meant to do.

True, but this is to the extreme. We have all had low points in our life, but rarelly to the extent of it eating up years after years of your life. Lockes dad was into the show by the writers to represent Lockes weakness IMO

So, you're arguing he has weaknesses? Of course he has weaknesses, everybody does! I thought you were arguing that his whole life is a failure, which it clearly is not.

He lost his marraige because of his dad, and thus because of his weakness.

See above.

Is he serving a valuable role? In the early days granted.

So... his whole life ISN'T a failure?

But now when it comes down to it, his role of the island is small. He has never successfully intregated into the group, and he seem s to spend most of his time fighting personal battles.

Well, we haven't seen much of him in Season 3 yet, but what have we seen so far?

1. Saved Eko's life.
2. Involved more castaways in a pro-active effort to contact the others.
3. Making plans to rescue Jack, Sawyer, and Kate.
4. De facto leader of the 815s.
5. Cleaned up his own mess.
6. Admitting that the Island killed Eko.

Not to be ashmamed of, but stil represnts the jist of weakness in Lockes life. They wouldn't have made the character of Jack Handicaped would they?

Jack is paranoid and obsessive, and has shown a tendency to lose self control and get violent. In my opinion, he's got a bigger handicap than Locke ever did.

That one was a just a tip bit :nanabobo:

Huh?

Ok I think I worded that wrong, he didn't directly cause the death, but he did indirectly I'd say. He woke Boone up at the crack of dawn, led him a drug plane that he was convinced was the 'key to unlocking the island' (another one of Lockes crazy moments of irrational belief, got Boone to climb up and Boone fell and died.

Boone did what he did of his own free will, and if he had LISTENED to Locke, and gotten out of the plane when Locke told him to, he wouldn't be dead. If I ask you to cross the street, and then midway across I yell at you to come back, because there's a bus coming, and you just stand there and get hit by the bus, did I cause your death? Even indirectly? Garbage.

He also failed to communiate with Jack after the accident,

Communicate what? Boone's injuries were right in front of Jack's face. If Dr. Jack couldn't diagnose them, then Locke certainly couldn't diagnose them. The difference between "Fell off a cliff" and "fell off a cliff inside a plane" are practically insignificant, when it comes to the kinds of injuries you can sustain from such an incident. If it was even possible to save Boone (which I don't think it was), then the problem lies with Jack's misdiagnosis.

instead opting to kneal on the hatch and shout 'WHY' over and over again, nice one Locke :D

Actually it IS a nice one, because if Locke had not done that, Desmond would have killed himself, the timer would have gone down without the failsafe key being turned, and all kinds of terrible things would have happened. Did you even see all of Season 2?

Quite a big mistake to make though, surely someone who is he mesiah of the island shouldn't be making such mistakes!

Only one calling him a mesiah is you, dude.

When has Locke not been mistaken?

Aww man, just a few?
1. He can hunt boar.
2. Walt can throw knives.
3. Jack can be a leader.
4. Boone can let go of his obsession with Shannon.
5. Shannon can quit obsessing about Boone.
6. Walt burned the raft.
7. The hatch was important.

Fair play on the earlier stuff, I can't deny that. Although, was finding the hatch a good thing?

Yep. If they had not found it, the failsafe key would not have been turned.

At the start I did, yes

Well, maybe you'll have your own hatch-destroying-itself-all-around-you moment of revelation then. :)

Finally somebody else who doesn't think that Locke has all the answers.

I don't know of ANYBODY who thinks Locke has all the answers.

[quote=Naps;1320341](maybe Artz but we'll let that slide cuz it was hilarious).

No, I wanna hear how Locke indirectly caused this one too. :)

And directly caused Boones death (not only by sending him into the plane when he knew he would get hurt,

There is zero evidence that, by sending Boone into the plane, Locke knew Boone would get hurt.

but also by lying to jack about the type of injury).

Locke didn't lie about type of injury, and wasn't even asked about injury. Jack said, "what happened," Locke said Boone "fell off a cliff." That was the truth. Inside a plane or outside a plane, that should have been enough for Jack to examine and diagnose.

Shannon - With Boone dead, she acted completely out of character and was irrational. Had Boone been alive, she wouldn't have gone all depressed and chased ghost Walt, leading to her death.

Okay, so if I ask you to cross the street, then yell at you to come back because a bus is coming, you stand there and get hit by the bus, and then your sister commits suicide, I'm indirectly responsible for both your deaths, huh?

Ana Lucia/Libby - After teaching Michael how to shoot a gun, Locke also didn't tell Jack that Ana Lucia, a person who is well known to have a vengence problem,

Well known by the audience, yes. But by Locke? Not so sure. What Locke knew is that Ana was a police officer, someone who is supposed to be trained not to give in to such impulses.

that she was attacked by Ben.

Jack does not need to know everything that goes on. Locke made a judgement call, in covering for Ana. That time, it was the wrong call.

Not only that, Locke left her ALONE with the person who attacked her. Nice. Because of this Ana and libby got killed.

Ana was killed by her own character flaw. In any normal situation, it is perfectly acceptable to leave an officer alone with a prisoner, even if that prisoner has attacked the officer. I'd know, I'm a cop.

Steve- Bad plan from the start, making little outposts to combat an enemy that he knows nothing about. They should've dug in at the caves and kept everyone together.

You are using 20/20 hindsight. The plan was not bad from the start. Like you said, they knew next to nothing about the enemy. There was a good argument for not holing up at the caves. Those were not "little outposts" to combat the enemy, they were simply guard posts to keep watch. The tactics were sound, they simply failed.

Brian

02-18-07, 02:15 AM

And directly caused Boones death (not only by sending him into the plane when he knew he would get hurt, but also by lying to jack about the type of injury).

Nobody killed Boone except Boone. If he'd have listened to Locke and gotten out of that plane when Locke noticed it was about to fall, he'd be alive today.

Just for old times sake, let's take a look at that scene again:

[We see Boone climbing up to the plane while Locke looks on. Boone slips.]

LOCKE: Hang on.

(The plane tilts with him in it...at this point it's a pretty good guess that it's unstable.)

LOCKE: Boone? Boone?

BOONE: I'm fine.

[Locke starts walking toward the plane.]

LOCKE: Boone, what do you see? Boone?

BOONE: Want to know what's in your damn plane, Locke?

[We see a crate with some Virgin Mary statues. Boone takes one and throws is down to Locke.]

BOONE: Here's your sign.

[The statue breaks open to reveal baggies of heroin.]

BOONE: They're drug smugglers, Locke. Heroin, that's all that's in here.
LOCKE: I don't understand. I don't understand.

(The plane starts to topple over....warning number 2 but Boone is still not leaving.)

LOCKE: Boone, Boone, get out! (Verbal warning from Locke #1 - Boone ignores it.)

BOONE [into the radio]: Hello. Hello. Anybody out there? Mayday, mayday.

LOCKE: Boone, there's no time. Get out now. (Verbal warning #2 from Locke - Boone ignores it. Also, this is warning #4 total that the damn plane is not stable.)

[b]RADIO VOICE: Is someone there?

BOONE: Hello. Hello. Can you hear me?

RADIO VOICE: Repeat your transmission please.

BOONE: Hello. We're survivors of the crash of Oceanic flight 815, please copy.

LOCKE [overlapping with Boone]: Boone, get out! (Verbal warning #3 from Locke - Boone's still jibberjabbering on the damn radio.)

RADIO VOICE: Hello. We're the survivors of Oceanic flight 815.

LOCKE [overlapping]: Boone, get out. (Verbal warning #4 from Locke; warning #6 overall.)

[The plane falls and flips over. Locke struggles to get up and gets Boone to carry him back to Jack.]

All in all I'd say the Island killed Boone because he was an idiot and couldn't hear well. I will, however, admit that he shouldn't have lied to Jack about Boone's injuries. However, given the limited resources at Jack's disposal, I don't think it would have mattered either way.

(Thanks [b]spooky for the transcripts!)

boonian androphile

02-18-07, 09:45 PM

Did Boone ignore the warnings deliberately or was he caught up in a possible moment of rescue?

In the days of ardent sentiment, I used to think that Locke was to blame. What irks me though is that Locke doesnt express guilt and remorse more often. There was one throw-away line somewhere. To Eko I believe. Well... Maybe it's not Locke's way, but if the opening of the hatch and the living therein were that monumental what made them even more so was the sacrifice of life to arrive there. Once Locke equated the death to collateral damage, in so many words. At the time I thought that the statement was quite cold. Now I wonder if it was simply a moment of emotional deflection. Now, of course, Locke has been so watered down by the ridiculous paths that his character was written to take, that I wouldnt know who he is from one scene to the next. Another casuality of bad writing triumphing over good characters.

By the time of the plane climb, I dont think either character was particularly psychologically separate. But, I concur: Boone made the decision to climb. It's a shame he didnt live long enough to harden out of his dumb naivete.

sgtdraino

02-19-07, 04:48 AM

What irks me though is that Locke doesnt express guilt and remorse more often. There was one throw-away line somewhere. To Eko I believe.

Perhaps a little trip down memory lane will make you feel better. :)

After Boone was mortally wounded, Locke bangs on the hatch, and yells to The Island:

"I've done everything you wanted me to do, so why did you do this to me?!"

Locke shows up at Boone's funeral:

"It was my fault. We found a plane, a Beechcraft, in the jungle. It was... it was lodged in the canopy, so... I would have gone up, but... but I... my leg was hurt, so he... There was a radio inside, and he thought he could... His weight must have made the plane shift, and it fell, and... Happened because he was trying to help us. He was a hero."

Locke apologizes to Shannon:

"I should have said no. First time he offered to hunt with me, I should have said no. I know how confused and angry you must be right now. I can't say I understand what you're going through, but... I know what it feels like to lose family. I hope you can forgive me. I'm sorry."

Having lost his faith, Locke tells Desmond how he feels:

"I looked down the barrel of the gun, and I believed. I thought it was my destiny to get into this... place. And... and somebody died. A... a kid. Because he was stupid enough to believe that I knew what I was talking about. And on the night that he died... for nothing, I was sitting right up there, all alone, beating my hand bloody against that stupid door, screaming to the heavens asking what I should do."

And finally, when Boone appears to Locke in his HAVID in "Further Instructions:"

"I'm sorry."

There ya go, guilt and remorse, brutha!

boonian androphile

02-19-07, 08:50 AM

Very good, Sgt Draino.

The beating on the hatch door I believe was a remorseful Locke.

The communications during after the funeral was, I believe, a more calculating Locke, who may have forgotten the detail of wearing blood on his clothes. It was pure drama. And dont forget the Pontius Pilate hand washing scene and Walt's silent rebuke. Very cool. His ambition was to be reaccepted into the fold. Because his personal mission mattered more. Oh and he needed the approval of others.

These aspects of Locke I loved actually. And I thought a great story would follow the subsequent year. But in season 2 I couldnt buy Locke's story at all. It made no sense what he was doing for it made no sense to equate the hatch with the island. And when the lament to Desmond appeared, I just couldnt buy the conviction. And neither, it seemed, could Mr. O'Quinn. It would have been better if others had been needling Locke as a vindictive power play, or Locke had expressed a certain transitory remorse, as in expressing his doubts to an understanding ear, en route to the grand confession to Desmond. Taunt Locke. A lot. Feed that complex. Jack did it once but the plot had then snapped its finger and required the characters involved to wig out. And then to Desmond, suddenly Locke says he's wrong, then he's right again, or something. Another finger snapping.

Locke has been a great character when allowed to breathe. And while I for personal reasons regretted the Boone event, it was initially perfect for the stage of conflict to follow. But the show swallowed itself whole for much of the next season and then took far too long to digest its way back out of the hatch.

So I guess you are correct, Sgt. Draino. I concede that Locke was sometimes remorseful. But he was also sometimes calculating. Sometimes an idiot. And sometimes misused.

sweetsunray

02-19-07, 07:11 PM

I thought Locke was interesting the first few epi's, but ever since he stopped hunting boar and was focused on the hatch, I've mistrusted him. He's what on Leary in his conflict Rose would be called the 2nd leader. 2nd leader personalities can be very useful to groups... they have initiative, things can be delegated to them, as long as they work for the group, not in their own interests.

Say you have a leader (in Lost it's Jack, like it or not). If somebody else often makes counter proposals then that's a 2nd leader. The best thing a leader does with a 2nd leader (a rival leader) is consider the proposal, in some cases have the group decide and go along with that decision, and delegate the responsibility to the 2nd leader.

Anyway back to Locke: For a while he was a Helper. His motivation was not for the group however, but mostly for himself: to be the Hunter, to be looked up at. That in itself isn't much of a problem as long as it's win-win. But once he found the hatch he didn't care about the group anymore, and started to get wrapped up in his own "destiny" (or what he claims to be "destiny"). He had a Helper (Boone), but didn't consult him, was convinced of his righteousness, nor did he consult with the one he had asked to be the Leader (Jack). It's been argued that Jack doesn't consult others, keeps secrets too. Yeah, he keeps secrets from the redshirts and cooperants, but rarely from his helpers (Kate, Sayid, Hurley).

What is significant about epi 1 in Season 2, is when Jack gives a speech of hope to the people in the caves. You'd think Locke would be grateful of that, since he calls himself a man of faith. But what does he do? He grabs a pile of wire to head off to the hatch, even though a consensus was made to stay together, in front of the whole cave, and signals to Jack he's gonna do whatever he wants to go do no matter what was agreed upon. That is an act AGAINST the group, and he takes a lot of initiative without ever consulting, even ignoring the advice of others. Locke is a bad leader, because he NEVER consults on his decision, totally ignores the advice of others on the big decisions, and because he's in it to prove himself for himself (not for the interest of others).

Locke's flaw is not that he has faith, but that he only has faith in his own judgement and never second-guesses himself. He's self-righteous. He thinks he knows the island, understands it. And he's wrong. When I rewatched the epi where he and Boone go for the plane, the island was never telling him to find the plane, but wanted him to find "?". Imagine what if Boone had seen that instead of investigating the smuggler's plane itself. They would have found the central hatch, which they could have opened easily enough, and see Desmond in his hatch. Boone wasn't the sacrifice the island demanded. Boone was Locke's sacrifice for his self-righteousness. Locke thinks he was safe from Smokey when returning from the Black Rock. I think it was the opposite. Smokey wanted him because Locke refused to take responsibility in his heart and mind for the role he played in Boone's death. Locke thinks he's wrong about the numbers and doesn't listen to Desmond (because Locke thinks he knows everything better) and destroys the puter only then to realize he made a mistake (that would have blown up the whole island, possibly destroyed the world). Oops.

Charlie said that if there was one he'd entrust his life with it would be Locke. I'd say the absolute opposite. I would not want Locke as a leader of mine, not until he has the ability to second guess himself.

As an extra: theory of the Rose of Leary (yeah that's Leary who experimented with drugs)
The Rose works like this (and you may know it in the form of 8 different animals). There are 2 axises: the vertical axis cuts roles into those who work "for" us (group) on the right, and those who work "against" us (group) on the left. The horizontal axis splits roles into people who take initiative (are verbal, act) and those who are passive and follow what's asked of them. Together the axises form 4 groups of behaviours: those who take initiative and offer stuff for the group (I), those who follow whatever happens or ask for the others to do something and are happy with the decisions (II), those who follow whatever happens but are distrustful (III), and those that act against the interests of the group, punish and attack (IV). Now you could still split the quarters in half, where in the first quarter the role leaning closer to the initiative axis is the Leader role, and the role leaning to the "For us" axis is called the Helper. They take initiative to help and support the Leader's interests. They consult with the Leader about proposals (even those they offer themselves), offer advice, etc. And stuff can be delegated to them.

In LOST Jack is the Leader. He takes first initiative and always in the interest for what's best for the group and others. Kate, Boone, Michael (originally), Hurley and Sayid are Helpers. The propose stuff, consult with Jack about it, consider his opinion, etc...

In the 2nd quarter you have those who won't take initiative themselves, but will do what's asked of them. Those who lean more to the "for us" side and a bit more active are called Cooperators. They agree with things, accept decisions, trust, etc... They want people to get along, and won't rock the boat. The ones whoe take the least initiative, but follow contently are Followers.
Examples of Cooperators: Charlie, Sun, Hurley sometimes, Sawyer when he comes along on treks, the majority of the redshirts.
Followers: redshirts and Claire

Now for te 3rd quarter (passive against us) there are the Withdrawn. They're silent, seem like Followers, but they're unhappy, when asked they'll wave stuff away, say things are alright, but when it's not to their liking steal off and be by themselves. The ones leaning mostly to the against axis in that quarter are the Rebels. They won't openly say what's on their mind, but evade the issue and remark things like "probably will lose his way again" under their breadth. Shannon is the Withdrawn type. Sawyer is the standard Rebel.

The 4th quarter can be divided into the Attacker and the Rival. The Attacker leans closest to the Against axis. They're violent, aggressive, accuse others, give critque in an offensive manner. Whereas the Rival is closest to the Initiative axis. They make counter proposals (every step of the way), do their own thing, reject proposals, etc...Sawyer can switch to the Attacker mode. And Locke is the typical Rival.

Of course nobody remains in the same role all the time. People can switch to other roles, because somebody hurt their own interests, etc. Leary made that Rose of roles as a moment shot of a relation between 2 people, and there are 2 basic rules:
1) powerful behaviour (taking initiative) will instinctively call up low initiative behaviour. And vice versa.
2) against behaviour instinctively makes us act against too. Together behaviour instinctively makes us behave for "us". It's hard to resist to a request on behalf of "we". And when someone starts to shout at us (Aggressive: Against Initiativ) then we'll automatically feel defensive, provoked and either cower and be resentful or be evasive rebellious.

When in a group situations aren't handled well at all, then people can get stuck in their role (especially when it's a yearlong pattern) and show more extreme behaviour of it: The Leader becomes Dictatorial, the Helper a Meddler, the Cooperant a Worrywart, the Follower becomes Dependant, the Withdrawn person becomes Ashamed One (even suicidal), the Rebel gets Bitter, the Attacker becomes Violent most of the time, the Rival becomes the Egoist.

Susan B Anthony

02-20-07, 06:47 PM

Let's all join hands and say it together.......

EVERYBODY on this island has issues. Their "issues" are what brought them to the island. Maybe because the island brought them there. Or maybe just because they wouldn't have been in Australia or on flight 815 but for their issues. (Locke: trying to find meaning through an impossible hike. Jack: bringing home the corpse of his father whose death he arguably caused. Hurley: to find the source of the cursed numbers. Kate: on the run. Sawyer: on a lifelone vendetta. etc. etc. etc.)

Locke's issue, and his weakness, is that he wants desperately to find something or someone to believe in. We have seen this work for the good (helping Charlie kick the habit, etc.) and for the bad (tunnel-vision when it comes to finding his destiny). It will be very interesting this season to see how Locke does when he is thrust into a position of leadership, something he has avoided up to now, instead pushing Jack to take that position. Already we see that he is more of a consensus builder ("anybody who wants to can come along") than Jack ("they're back at the caves waiting for us to tell them what to do," and every other episode's "we're done here."). Time will tell if he is able to achieve a balance or will spin off on another obsessive quest.

p.s. Oh yeah, and I agree with Sgt. Draino's point-counterpoint. :yeah:

boonian androphile

02-20-07, 08:53 PM

I agree too, more or less. Sometimes though I must spew emotion, not sense. I just gotta.

Locke's great. I wouldnt talk about him this much if I didnt like him.

But the next person who falls for that Ohhhhhhh I can't walk so will you do this for me crap I'm just going to shoot. :laser:

sweetsunray

02-20-07, 09:19 PM

This is how I see Locke's issue... He does search for guidance, destiny. Doesn't trust the advize of another human being, for the life of him (nobody should tell him what not to do), but he'll seek for The Island to tell him what to do. So, in the end he still allows something else but him to tell him what to do, if only the tunel visioned fragmentary hallucinations of his mind. I wouldn't call that truly self-reliant.

What I don't understand is how he keeps hanging on to his tunnel vision. He was wrong about the beechcraft having any real significance for his hatch mission (it was the location of the beechcraft that was important), and he has every bit of information to know that. He was wrong about the button (twice). Etc. But he blaims it on destiny again.

And though he trusts no human soul to advize him on anything, he trusts to tell the wrong persons the stuff he shouldn't tell: like telling Charlie about Hurley's food division job. Heck everybody knows Charlie's a blabbermouth.

And what irks me is that now he has the chance to be a leader, he still is rivaling with Jack, making disparaging comments about Jack behind his back. There's a few things that gets me mad with people butone of those things is backtalking. And the other is not taking responsibility for your own actions or your own part in stuff.

Locke needs to take a very hard look at himself, and when he does that, he will be able to really rely on himself and then others can truly rely on him. Yeah, everybody is blind there on the island. Locke is as blind, but he thinks he isn't. How he even dares to talk ill of others, in order to make himself look better, when he doesn't even have true faith in himself, makes me sick. He's a hazard to be around.

It was very dark what Charlie did to Locke when he helped Sawyer con Jack-Locke and Kate. But I must admit I was glad that Locke got his revenge dish served.

Homer Noodleman

02-21-07, 03:45 AM

LOCKE: I was never meant to do anything. Every single second of my pathetic little life is as useless as that button!

How did I miss this thread? Even Locke knows he's a boob.

Susan B Anthony

02-21-07, 03:55 AM

He was wrong about the button (twice).

Wait a minute. He said they should push it. Then he said they shouldn't push it. Inconsistent, yes. But he had to be right one of those times. Or are you saying he was wrong to push it, then wrong to stop pushing it?

sweetsunray

02-21-07, 04:47 AM

Well, he was wrong not to take into account that it wasn't a psychological experiment, and he was wrong not take into account that the psyche experiment was a cover up to expose the knowledge that they needed to dam the electromagnetical field. Locke seems to think rather black and white. Things can be both, that is grey. The button was both a psyche experiment and a dam for the electromagnetical field. And it's partly that kind of either black and white - utter distrust and despair to naïve and unsceptical belief -that makes him a hazard, a Locke problem.
The same problem comes up with advice: doesn't want anyone to even advize him what to do, but then at the same time looks up in to the sky and look for advice within the stars (iguratively speaking)
Same problem with what to tell people: he blabbers secrets without thinking to people you cannot trust or are much of a help, but shuts his mouth to those who need the information to found decisions on.

Susan B Anthony

02-21-07, 02:33 PM

So Locke wasn't wrong to push the button or not push the button, you just don't like his reasons? It is fine to say that life is made up of shades of grey in theory, and I agree with you on that point in theory, but the reality is, when you are standing in front of the button, you have to either push it or not. It sort of has to be black or white. If Jack had his way, the button would have gone un-pushed on several occasions, with no Desmond nearby to turn the failsafe key. I always thought the reasonable approach would have been, let's make a concerted effort to find out what it does, but in the meantime, keep pushing the button to maintain the status quo.

As to Locke not sharing valuable information with other people, well, welcome to craphole island. There is an epidemic of that going around, from Kate not sharing that they found a locker full of theatrical costumes, going all the way back to Jack not telling anybody that Kate was wanted for murder. I believe someone once observed, the 815s have real trust issues!

sweetsunray

02-21-07, 04:50 PM

Yeah, I know you have to act or not. That's not what I have a problem with. It's the all or nothing attitude from Locke that I had a problem with. I'm just quoting him when he says "I was wrong" (and he says it twice).

BTW After my post last night I figured out why he had a black and white eye in Claire's dream in season 1.

There is an epidemic of secrecy... but sometimes there are good reasons for not telling anyone something. I agree with Jack that Kate was a fugitive ought not to be exposed to everybody from the get go. BTW Hurley knew as well. Kate should have told Sayid, Jack, and Sawyer about the false beard she found, and that there was another station. They kept Henry Gale a secret, and for good reasons, but several people were informed. AL should have told about the map. But Locke often keeps secrets not in the interests of others, but for selfish reasons, to prove he doesn't need to consult with anyone...That's bad. He's committed to the rival position on the Rose. Even when he has no rival there, he still rivals. That implicates he works AGAINST the group, even when he has genius ideas.

sgtdraino

02-22-07, 04:50 AM

The communications during after the funeral was, I believe, a more calculating Locke, who may have forgotten the detail of wearing blood on his clothes.

Think about that statement. He was being calculating, but he FORGOT about the blood on his clothes? This goes to what I've said before, about people reading negative connotations into Locke's actions, where there isn't really any evidence to support them. Why do you think that Locke was being calculating? Why wouldn't his admission simply be what it appeared to be? Locke may be sneakier than he give himself credit for, and he does have a tendency to withold information, but I find that when he actually chooses to speak, he is often one of the most forthcoming and honest of the 815s.

It was pure drama. And dont forget the Pontius Pilate hand washing scene and Walt's silent rebuke. Very cool.

I didn't read it that way. And what rebuke? All I saw was Walt spotting Locke's kidney scar, and sort of wondering what to think about it.

But in season 2 I couldnt buy Locke's story at all. It made no sense what he was doing

Exactly.

for it made no sense to equate the hatch with the island.

We-ell, Locke believed the Island meant for him to go down there, and for a time he believed the Island meant for him to push the button. This was, in fact, correct!

Locke has been a great character when allowed to breathe. And while I for personal reasons regretted the Boone event, it was initially perfect for the stage of conflict to follow.

Oh, btw, I forgot another guilt/remorse admission. From "Further Instructions," when Charlie wants to go with Locke, Locke says:

"You don't want to go with me, Charlie. Bad things happen to people who hang around with me."

Locke was sometimes remorseful. But he was also sometimes calculating. Sometimes an idiot. And sometimes misused.

As Locke says himself, "I'm an ordinary man."

EVERYBODY on this island has issues. Their "issues" are what brought them to the island.

Yep!

It will be very interesting this season to see how Locke does when he is thrust into a position of leadership, something he has avoided up to now,

Exactly. Some people say Locke has been vying to take over. No way, he's avoided that role.

instead pushing Jack to take that position. Already we see that he is more of a consensus builder ("anybody who wants to can come along") than Jack ("they're back at the caves waiting for us to tell them what to do," and every other episode's "we're done here.").

Yep.

He's what on Leary in his conflict Rose would be called the 2nd leader.

Interesting hypothesis, sweetsunray, but I personally don't think the Conflict Rose applies to the 815s very well.

Anyway back to Locke: For a while he was a Helper. His motivation was not for the group however, but mostly for himself: to be the Hunter, to be looked up at.

I think you're way off base on that. Locke's guiding motivation has always been "what's best for all of us." TPTB have even iterated that in interviews. I've never seen any inclination that he desires to be idolized. When asked, he tends to downplay his abilities and past. "I'm an ordinary man," "My story would bore you," "I was a regional collections supervisor for a box company," etc.

But once he found the hatch he didn't care about the group anymore, and started to get wrapped up in his own "destiny" (or what he claims to be "destiny").

Locke believes he has a destiny, but his treatment of the hatch had to do with the group.

He had a Helper (Boone), but didn't consult him, was convinced of his righteousness, nor did he consult with the one he had asked to be the Leader (Jack).

Locke didn't consult because he believed (rightly) that if he was honest with his sources of information (the Island), the other 815s would just think he was nuts. They were not ready to listen, they could not understand.

What is significant about epi 1 in Season 2, is when Jack gives a speech of hope to the people in the caves. You'd think Locke would be grateful of that, since he calls himself a man of faith. But what does he do? He grabs a pile of wire to head off to the hatch, even though a consensus was made to stay together, in front of the whole cave, and signals to Jack he's gonna do whatever he wants to go do no matter what was agreed upon. That is an act AGAINST the group,

Locke was careful to say that Jack's decision was the smart choice (even though it wasn't), and that everyone should stay and wait until morning, but that he himself was going in. The 815s are not a dictatorship, Locke was within his rights to do that. And Jack did not "reach a consensus," he simply did what he always does, and bosses everyone around. Did he ask for a show of hands? Uh-uh.

Locke is a bad leader, because he NEVER consults on his decision, totally ignores the advice of others on the big decisions,

Do you mean "consults" as in "consensus?" I am not the only one on this thread who has noticed that Locke is actually a better consensus builder than Jack. :)

and because he's in it to prove himself for himself (not for the interest of others).

This is contrary to what TPTB have stated about the nature of the character.

Locke's flaw is not that he has faith, but that he only has faith in his own judgement and never second-guesses himself.

He second-guesses himself all the time.

He thinks he knows the island, understands it.

Uh, no he doesn't. "The Island killed Eko. I don't know why."

When I rewatched the epi where he and Boone go for the plane, the island was never telling him to find the plane, but wanted him to find "?". Imagine what if Boone had seen that instead of investigating the smuggler's plane itself. They would have found the central hatch, which they could have opened easily enough, and see Desmond in his hatch. Boone wasn't the sacrifice the island demanded. Boone was Locke's sacrifice for his self-righteousness.

You are wrong on all counts. Boone had to die so that Locke would bang on the hatch and Desmond would be saved.

Desmond: "You say there isn't any purpose, there's no such thing as fate. But you saved my life, brutha, so that I could save yours."

If Boone and Locke had found The Pearl, they might have seen Desmond on the monitors, but they still didn't know how to contact him. They wouldn't even have known the video feed is from the hatch in the first place. To save Desmond, Locke had to bang on the hatch at that specific time.

And Boone was the sacrifice the Island demanded. The Island, posing as Boone, says so.

Locke thinks he was safe from Smokey when returning from the Black Rock. I think it was the opposite.

I dunno what the deal was with that, but Locke seemed pretty certain that Smokey wasn't going to harm him. Smokey tried to drag Locke down into a hole. I wonder what was down there? Maybe it wasn't something bad after all.

Locke thinks he's wrong about the numbers and doesn't listen to Desmond (because Locke thinks he knows everything better) and destroys the puter only then to realize he made a mistake (that would have blown up the whole island, possibly destroyed the world). Oops.

I still think the Island's objective all along was to force Desmond to turn the failsafe key. The Island engineered Locke's loss of faith, in order to achieve this. In losing his faith, Locke was actually carrying out the Island's plan.

Whereas the Rival is closest to the Initiative axis. They make counter proposals (every step of the way), do their own thing, reject proposals, etc...Sawyer can switch to the Attacker mode. And Locke is the typical Rival.

But Locke, generally speaking, doesn't make counter proposals or reject proposals. He does do his own thing, but he is generally not argumentative when other people want to do something else. Jack is the one who feels the need to crush any plan different than his own.

He was wrong about the beechcraft having any real significance for his hatch mission

Ahem. Saved Desmond.

And what irks me is that now he has the chance to be a leader, he still is rivaling with Jack, making disparaging comments about Jack behind his back.

What disparaging comments? Are you possibly referring to "I'm not Jack?" THAT's disparaging? That's funny. :)

There's a few things that gets me mad with people butone of those things is backtalking.

Yeah, like, saying you're not Jack! :)

And the other is not taking responsibility for your own actions or your own part in stuff.

Yeah, by saying things like, "It was my fault," and "I'm sorry!" :)

How he even dares to talk ill of others, in order to make himself look better,

???

How did I miss this thread? Even Locke knows he's a boob.

LOCKE: I was never meant to do anything. Every single second of my pathetic little life is as useless as that button!

LOL. This IS funny, because the quote Homer uses is actually TRUE! Locke's life is as useless as the button. BUT... woops... the button wasn't useless! :)

Things can be both, that is grey. The button was both a psyche experiment and a dam for the electromagnetical field.

This, actually, is yet again incorrect. The button was never a psychological experiment. The activities in The Pearl were the psychological experiment. The Pearl's observations of hatch activites went NOWHERE, a big pile in a field. It was the observers themselves who were being observed. They were the experiment.

boonian androphile

02-22-07, 06:42 AM

Now, Sgt. Draino, if you can just fix last night's episode!

Other than to say that Locke's complexity is (or was) what makes (made) him compelling, I will argue Locke another day.

Uh, whenever he mounts this alleged rescue, if I were any of the other characters, I would neither join nor stand close to him. Except for Paulo and Nikki, who may, with my blessings, do both.

Let's see Locke have about four episodes in a row. I think it's his turn now...:rolleyez:

sweetsunray

02-22-07, 03:10 PM

The conflict Rose applies to any two person interaction, and always.

Locke was wrong to gather the wire so obviously in the sight of the redshirts. There's a cave full of people fearing the Others are coming. Jack tries to calm them down, and then one of the guys they think as one of the capable fighters starts talking about leaving and about going down there. This is very confusing to people in fear. It spoils Jack's attempt. At a moment of crises you don't want to show split interests. It makes people on edge. I often need to make decisions based on consensus, except when there's a crises or a "situation". That's when leaders must pull together, stand together, and call the shots without giving information that's unnecessary distressing to those who are passive.

Oh, and Locke wanted to open the hatch in the interest of the group? First he ignores Hurley's "Stop! Stop!" while Hurley is still near the hatch. At least he could have heard Hurley out, or allow Hurley to run into a safer zone. But no, Locke heard, smiled and lit the fuse.

from the readthrough:
HURLEY: Why'd you do that? Why'd you light the fuse, man?

LOCKE: Why wouldn't I light the fuse?

HURLEY: Maybe because I was running towards you, waving my arms, yelling "don't do that?"

LOCKE [laughing]: Well, you've got a point there. I guess I was just excited to get inside. I mean, that's why we came here, isn't it? That's why we went all the way out to the Black Rock -- why we got the dynamite to blow the hatch. We did it so that we could get inside, Hugo.

JACK: And to save everybody's lives.

But facts show that won't work. All Locke is really interested in is getting inside. Saving the lives of the Losties is an afterthought. And when that's not an option since they can't get everyone down there that night, Locke only cares about getting into the hatch. And he wants Jack and Kate to come along. Getting into the hatch to satisfy his curiosity is more important to Locke than the Others coming to attack them and if they can't hide at least protect the Losties. Nope, Locke is not interested in the well being of the group. It may come in handy when it supports what he wants to do. But as soon as he wants to do someting that's not in the interest of the Losties, he's not so interested in it anymore.

from the readthrough:
JACK: It doesn't matter what it is. We blew the door so we could get everyone inside this thing so we could be safe. That plan is not going to work. We'll never get everyone down in time.

[Locke drops a rock into the hatch.]

KATE: Water.

LOCKE: It's shallow. It sounds like a puddle.

KATE: 40 feet down?

LOCKE: 50 tops. If we could use the wire we pulled from the fuselage -- rig up a harness...

JACK: John, we're leaving now.

HURLEY: Yes, good idea. Let's do that.

LOCKE: We all went through a lot to get here, Jack.

JACK: The ladder's broken. You going to lower 40 people down there one by one? They're waiting for us to come back and tell them what to do, so let's forget about the harnesses.

KATE: Jack?

JACK: What?

LOCKE: Why don't we all just calm down here.

JACK: Look, if you want to go exploring in the morning that's fine, but tonight we're done. I'm going to go get the dynamite we didn't use and we're heading back to the caves. How about you pack it up, John?

LOCKE: Sure, of course.

JACK: Okay.

LOCKE: Why don't you want to go down there, Jack?

Locke consented, and then in the cave he goes back on his consent. And after all the arguments Jack has already given, Locke makes it a personal thing. Jack's not interested in going down there, because it doesn't help the group at that moment. It shows exactly the difference in interest: Locke wants to go in because HE wants to, Jack doesn't want to go in because he's not about to endanger his life any more for something he can't use to safeguard the Losties at that moment. Locke thinks of himself, Jack thinks about the group. And since Locke is taking so much initiative without aggression, that makes him a Rival on the conflict Rose, and since Jack is thinking about the needs of the whole group and making decisions that makes him a Leader.

Clubbing Sayid down wasn't much in the interest of the group either.

sweetsunray

02-22-07, 08:54 PM

So for the Boone had to die arguments

a) No, Locke would not have been sure that the images of Desmond in the hatch were of the same place through reason... but since Locke was on a "destiny" high anyway, he would have been sure because it was "destiny". The image of Desmond inside, would have had the similar effect as Desmond turning the light on later on.
b) Jack's reasoning did not sway Desmond from his "destiny" feel, so I don't think even the pearl tape would have done so.
c) Locke would have had the print out, and the books, and taken it himself and gone straight to the hatch, banging on it like a madman to have the attention of the guy inside, and thereby ALSO saving Desmond's life. And it would have been the same outcome, even better. Desmond would probably have been in a high over being saved right at the moment he wanted to blow his own head off, told everything, and with the print outs Locke would have been more convinced how important the button was.
Etc...

Also, two times the island/smokey/dreams thought to lead Locke to the pearl and that it would help Locke. And two times it tried to get someone up the cliff, from where you could see the question mark, regardless whether the plane had fallen or not.

As for Locke wanting to be special: Anyone ranting about destiny is dong that out of a need to feel special, as if the universe picked a special fate for you, and that need, that want is based on seeing your life as something worthless and plain. That Locke mentions so often that he's a nobody, is exactly the sign for his need to counterweigh it with finding something that proves he has a destiny. He doesnt want to feel like a nobody, he wants to feel special. What Locke needs to learn is that his life isn't worthless, nor plain even. You're never a failure, unless you think yourself you're a failure. So, no we don't all get to be names that are remembered for thousand of years. There are a lot of people who have a lowkey life but do some great stuff out there. To me Locke is searching for something that isn't out there. Detiny is not outside, but within: you decide and make your own destiny.

BTW Locke should have informed that tour operator of his condition. At least they could have prepared themselves, or referenced him to a tour operator that has the trained people for this. The adventure tour operator I work for in the summer has a few tourleaders in wheelchairs themselves. So I know it can be done, but within limits. I know they shouldn't send me on the Inca Trail with Locke.

sgtdraino

02-23-07, 04:29 AM

Now, Sgt. Draino, if you can just fix last night's episode!

Heh! Some things, alas, are beyond my power. :) This is funny, because I read this post before I had a chance to see last night's episode. At the time, I wondered if Locke had done something stupid in it. Now I see it's simply another Jack-back episode, which have a tendency to suck ballz.

Uh, whenever he mounts this alleged rescue, if I were any of the other characters, I would neither join nor stand close to him. Except for Paulo and Nikki, who may, with my blessings, do both.

lol. Hey, Charlie didn't get hurt when he went on a quest with Locke! Oh wait, Charlie's supposed to die now. ;) It did occur to me while hunting for those Locke quotes that Locke seems to view himself in the same way that Hurley views himself: Individually lucky, but causing bad luck to people around them. Interesting!

Let's see Locke have about four episodes in a row. I think it's his turn now...:rolleyez:

Damn straight! After months of waiting, practically all the Locke we've had so far is a cameo on Desmond's episode. Clearly the lack of Locke-factor is what's causing the ratings to slip! ;)

Locke was wrong to gather the wire so obviously in the sight of the redshirts.

Locke was going about doing his thing quietly. It was Jack that called attention to it.

There's a cave full of people fearing the Others are coming. Jack tries to calm them down, and then one of the guys they think as one of the capable fighters starts talking about leaving and about going down there. This is very confusing to people in fear. It spoils Jack's attempt.

How does Locke going to the hatch have ANYTHING to do with calming folks about the Others?

At a moment of crises you don't want to show split interests. It makes people on edge.

In a real crisis, this can be true. But this wasn't a real crisis. And I think this applies more to opposing interests, rather than split interests. Locke wasn't opposing Jack's speech, in fact he affirmed it. He was just going to go do his own thing.

That's when leaders must pull together, stand together, and call the shots without giving information that's unnecessary distressing to those who are passive.

To a degree, you are correct. But it's a mistake to treat people like sheep. That can backfire.

Oh, and Locke wanted to open the hatch in the interest of the group? First he ignores Hurley's "Stop! Stop!" while Hurley is still near the hatch. At least he could have heard Hurley out, or allow Hurley to run into a safer zone. But no, Locke heard, smiled and lit the fuse.

Yeah he did. But he still did it in the interests of the group. Locke believed it was best for the 815s to get down there. He was correct.

JACK: And to save everybody's lives.

But facts show that won't work. All Locke is really interested in is getting inside. Saving the lives of the Losties is an afterthought.

What makes you think saving lives was an afterthought? Jack was simply playing "gotcha." "Oooh, you didn't mention saving lives, so that must not be one of your reasons!" Uh, more like that reason is so obvious it goes without saying.

And when that's not an option since they can't get everyone down there that night,

That's the thing, though. Jack had no idea what was down there. He saw the broken ladder, and immediately dismissed the hatch as being useless. If they had gone down right away, made peaceful contact with Desmond, it would have been a simple matter to open the back door, and presto, get everyone down there that night. :)

Locke only cares about getting into the hatch.

Locke is motivated by "what's best for all of us," a contention backed by tptb. The well-being of the group is at the very core of his character. If an individual stands in the way of "what's best for all of us," then Locke might be inclined to wack them on the head, or blow up the dynamite anyway. It's what he does. :)

JACK: John, we're leaving now.

HURLEY: Yes, good idea. Let's do that.

LOCKE: We all went through a lot to get here, Jack.

JACK: The ladder's broken. You going to lower 40 people down there one by one? They're waiting for us to come back and tell them what to do, so let's forget about the harnesses.

KATE: Jack?

JACK: What?

LOCKE: Why don't we all just calm down here.

JACK: Look, if you want to go exploring in the morning that's fine, but tonight we're done. I'm going to go get the dynamite we didn't use and we're heading back to the caves. How about you pack it up, John?

LOCKE: Sure, of course.

JACK: Okay.

LOCKE: Why don't you want to go down there, Jack?

Locke consented, and then in the cave he goes back on his consent. And after all the arguments Jack has already given, Locke makes it a personal thing.

Re-read the above exchange. "All the arguments?" All I see is one argument (the ladder's broken, we can't all get down), which turns out to be wrong. Jack is not thinking about the situation rationally. He knows nothing about the hatch, and there is no reason not to go down right away and check it out. There's nothing stopping Jack from going back to comfort the folks. Jack just has to have his pig-headed way, and wants everyone to do what he says. Hurley's in a similar state, but one of emotional panic. Kate, like Locke, realizes that Jack is dismissing options out-of-hand. Locke realizes that it will do no good to argue with Jack in that state, and that a confrontation with Jack also won't help anything. So Locke does what is necessary, and goes along with Jack temporarily. Locke is careful to NOT make it personal. Jack is the one making it personal, with his "Locke problem."

Jack's not interested in going down there, because it doesn't help the group at that moment.

Except that it could have. Jack was wrong. :)

Jack doesn't want to go in because he's not about to endanger his life any more for something he can't use to safeguard the Losties at that moment.

No one's forcing Jack to endanger his life. Jack was free to go back to the camp and do whatever. He just felt the need to boss everybody else back to the camp too.

Jack is thinking about the needs of the whole group and making decisions that makes him a Leader.

To my mind, Jack is most primarily concerned with maintaining his status as a competent leader. He is afraid to make mistakes, afraid to fail, and sees any alternate viewpoint as a threat to his own authority. As such, those viewpoints are crushed by Jack as quickly as possible. For someone who doesn't want to be leader, Jack claws like crazy to hold onto that position.

Clubbing Sayid down wasn't much in the interest of the group either.

We don't know that. We haven't been to the radio tower, we don't know what's there.

So for the Boone had to die arguments

c) Locke would have had the print out, and the books, and taken it himself and gone straight to the hatch, banging on it like a madman to have the attention of the guy inside, and thereby ALSO saving Desmond's life.

All this is pure speculation. The banging on the hatch was all about timing. If the timing was off, Desmond dies. You're assuming a lot of things in thinking that seeing The Pearl would cause Locke to go straight to the hatch. He would have had to bang on it by that evening, to save Desmond. Desmond would also need to be standing in a spot where he could hear the banging, and not playing music or making noise.

Also, two times the island/smokey/dreams thought to lead Locke to the pearl and that it would help Locke. And two times it tried to get someone up the cliff, from where you could see the question mark, regardless whether the plane had fallen or not.

What makes you think Smokey's objective was the question mark every time? I see no evidence of that.

As for Locke wanting to be special:

Everyone wants to feel special.

To me Locke is searching for something that isn't out there. Detiny is not outside, but within: you decide and make your own destiny.

That's a nice philosophy, but it seems at odds with "Flashes Before Your Eyes." Self-destiny may not exist in the world of Lost.

Oh, try not to double-post, the mods frown on it. Edit your pre-existing post if necessary.

sweetsunray

02-23-07, 01:51 PM

Locke was going about doing his thing quietly. It was Jack that called attention to it.

Locke was the one taking the initiative here, while Jack had another much needed initiativ going. And Jack responded to that. Clear dried rival action from Locke to start with. I agree though, that Jack perhaps should not have made Locke asnwer to him at that moment.

See the difference on how Kate tackled it. She waited until she had a private moment with Jack, and then told him what she was about to do. She didn't ask for permission, but she explained it privately and informed him. Kate takes Helper position here. She consults with the leader and with tact (=privately), even though she'll do what she thinks is best.

How does Locke going to the hatch have ANYTHING to do with calming folks about the Others? See the splitting initiative in front of them that would be unsettling.

In a real crisis, this can be true. But this wasn't a real crisis.

Well, we knew that. But how would the Losties have known that? They didn't know the Others were only after Walt on the raft.

And I think this applies more to opposing interests, rather than split interests. Locke wasn't opposing Jack's speech, in fact he affirmed it. He was just going to go do his own thing.

Nope, it's split interests as well as opposing interests. There are times when people can do their own stuff, without consulting anyone about it. There are times when people can do their own stuff, and at least warn someone about it. Other times they need to consult about it.

To a degree, you are correct. But it's a mistake to treat people like sheep. That can backfire.

True, you don't need to treat people like sheep all the time. It's called situational leadership. A moment of crises and a moment when a group starts to form are the moments when authoritive (directive) leadership is needed. Social interests (that is try to make people be more initiative) ought to be low, task result interests are high. The cave gathering while waiting for the Others is such a time. Then there are moments where you can take people along in the task results, but you still call the shots. Then there are people and moments where you can delegate tasks. And lastly there are moments where you just let people do their own thing and trust they can do it by themselves. When it comes to intiative possibilities you have 4 kinda people: those who have skill and are willing to take initiative, those who have skill but don't want to take initiative, those who have no skill and want to take iniative, and those who have no skill and don't want to take iniative.

Yeah he did. But he still did it in the interests of the group. Locke believed it was best for the 815s to get down there. He was correct.

And here must agree to disagree. To me he had no short term interest for the safety of the group, which is what matters at moment of crises (and to the Losties who didn't know the Others were not coming, but thinking they would be coming it was a moment o crises). To explore it, they needed time and a skilled team, and take great risks. They had no way to know what was down there. For all they knew it could have contained Others, or Smokey. To go in, in such time consuming and obvious perilous circumstances (no ladder, quarantine on the inside, Others supposedly coming to attack them) while not even knowing it would benefit the group the only reasonable thing to do was call the project off.

Here's a quote from Exodus 3:
LOCKE: The path ends at the hatch. The hatch, Jack -- all of it -- all of it happened so that we could open the hatch.

JACK: No, no, we're opening the hatch so that we can survive.

LOCKE: Survival is all relative, Jack.

What makes you think saving lives was an afterthought? Jack was simply playing "gotcha." "Oooh, you didn't mention saving lives, so that must not be one of your reasons!" Uh, more like that reason is so obvious it goes without saying.

Because indeed that was not on his mind at all, and because he ignored the safety of Hurley, because he ignored Hurley's "wait" (and he admitted to that), and because he ignored Jack's sound reasoning, and could give no other reason to go in there than curiosity.

Jack was not playing gotcha. Jack was reminding him of the main reason why they went fo rthe dynamite and open the hatch. What betrays it is the language reference. Those who talk of "we" and those who don't.

That's the thing, though. Jack had no idea what was down there. He saw the broken ladder, and immediately dismissed the hatch as being useless. If they had gone down right away, made peaceful contact with Desmond, it would have been a simple matter to open the back door, and presto, get everyone down there that night. :)

Yeah, indeed Jack had no idea what was down there. A good leader just does not jump into whoknowswhat because there might be a slight chance it will be worhtwhile, certainly not if you've got about 40 people waiting for you, and the Others supposedly coming. You call the whole thing of at that point. It was too time consuming, too risky from that point on, without knowing what was down there.

If an individual stands in the way of "what's best for all of us," then Locke might be inclined to wack them on the head, or blow up the dynamite anyway. It's what he does. :)

Yeah, it's what he does. And I would put a piece of paper in front of the nose of such a person where I'd sign him out of my group, and call the office and have him on a plane back with the police waiting in the airport. He can sue me afterwards. This argument amazes me, when at the same you complain about Jack giving orders at times. Giving orders as a leader at times of crises is horrendous, but endangering someone's life and attacking people for some unknown mysterious possible benefit is defendable?

Re-read the above exchange. "All the arguments?" All I see is one argument (the ladder's broken, we can't all get down), which turns out to be wrong.
Jack is not thinking about the situation rationally. He knows nothing about the hatch, and there is no reason not to go down right away and check it out.

"We blew the door so we could get everyone inside this thing so we could be safe. That plan is not going to work. We'll never get everyone down in time."

"The ladder's broken. You going to lower 40 people down there one by one? They're waiting for us to come back and tell them what to do, so let's forget about the harnesses."

There's a 50 feet dark hole down, with a broken ladder into whoknowswhat. It's exactly because he knows nothing that he must make the safest decision. And that is for them to go in with a team when they have time for it. Yeah, he and Hurley could have gone back to camp and just let Kate and Locke explore and not care about their safety ... but we know how that ended up: they were taken captive.

Jack just has to have his pig-headed way, and wants everyone to do what he says.

Yeah, at that situation he wanted everyone to do what he said. It's a directive situation after all.

Locke is careful to NOT make it personal. Jack is the one making it personal, with his "Locke problem."

Locke makes it personal with his "Why don't you want to go down there, Jack?" after he already gave his reasons, in front of everyone.

Jack's Locke problem comment is made as a situation assesment... he's pointing to the conflict position Locke is taking. And he's not doing it in front of everyone.

No one's forcing Jack to endanger his life. Jack was free to go back to the camp and do whatever. He just felt the need to boss everybody else back to the camp too.

Yeah, and imo for good reasons.

To my mind, Jack is most primarily concerned with maintaining his status as a competent leader.

I disagree. He's concerned about everyone's safety. And he is concerned about the lone actions of someone who doesn't listen to reason nor consults with him, thereby making it more difficult for him, because that makes things very unpredictable. And as a leader you try to avoid unpredictable situations as much as you can, because that makes it all te more difficult to make decisions. You need to have an overview as much as possible. Of course you may risk things, but those risks must be calculated ones. The Locke problem is that he's unpredictable, and just puts extra weight and worry on Jack's mind, while he could be exactly one of those problems he does not have to worry about. Consulting with him prior to taking iniative and not rivaling would be of a great help.

He is afraid to make mistakes, afraid to fail, and sees any alternate viewpoint as a threat to his own authority.

Any good leader is afraid to make mistakes and afraid to fail. But I disagree with the statement that he sees any alternate viewpoint as a threat. He actually does listen to arguments of others, is able to say, "Obviously you have a plan on your mind, let's hear it," and actually see worth in it. Ok, so sometimes he's reluctant, but he's able to agree with the arguments of others:
- the plan to have Ana Lucia questin Benry: and it was here that Locke needed to make it known that he did not need to consult with Jack. So it's Locke who has the ego problem, not Jack. That is what makes him so irritating, that he doesn't even comprehend that consulting is not asking for permission (see how great Kate did that when going to the hatch after Locke), but that it actually alleviates Jack from worrying what you may or may not going to do or are doing.
- Kate going with Sayid with the transceiver
- Boone going to look for pens: this was quite interesting really... Boone was incompetent, and he has Boone out of the way doing something that doesn't need to be done, but at least Boone thinks he's been doing something helpful on his own intiative
- Kate going on the Boar hunt, especially once he learns her full plan about the transceiver
- Claire's suggestion for the obituaries
- Boone's suggestion to talk to Rose
- The conversation with Locke in White Rabbit
- Kate, Locke, Charlie and Jack exploring the caves... He takes Charlie's suggestion, backed up by Locke
- the beehive situation
- the moving to the cave suggestion, he even asks the opinion of others (such as Kate): he understands that part of the group needs to remain at the beach for the signal fire and crying for help if planes fly over, or a boat passes. And though he doesn't like the prospect of Kate staying at the beach, he does understand and lets her know he's not holding grudges for it.
- Kate suggesting to talk to Sawyer about the inhalers
- Sayid's suggestoin to make Sawyer talk (yeah I know, was entirely unethical... but I'm not pointing out the good and bad suggestions... only pointing out where Jack went with the suggestions of others, and even had them perform the task)
- Michael's suggestion to make showers in the caves
- Hurley's golf course, and gallantly gives Hurley all the credit for it, even how Hurley managed people to feel safe while he couldn't
- HUrley's census
- Sun's plant help and garden
- Michael's raft
- Locke's suggestion for the sentries and guarding the Losties after Ethan's threat (Jack originally was with the plan for tracking Ethan down)
- Jack consults with Locke about luring Ethan with the guns, and he follows Locke's suggestion to use the 4 guns, so 4 guys
- Sun's suggestion to get some air durign Boone's treatment, Sun's sea urchin needle
- He lets go of Boone on his request (of course a patient always has the right to deny a procedure)
- Jack returns to the beach on Kate's pleading and arguments during his search for Locke
- Following Locke's plan to get into the hatch, and go get some dynamite to get the people in
- Arnzt suggestions and warnings on dynamite. Kate to be part of the party. Lets go of Danielle after Locke's suggestion that he'll lead them back. And allow Arnzt take the lead with opening the case and getting the dynamite out. And Locke's suggestion to split the dynamite in two packs, in case someone blows himself up like Arnzt, and his suggestion to stagger the formation

And that is from S1 alone... I can give you more of S2, a lot of it Locke's suggestions.

As for keeping secrets... Jack told about the guns when it was necessary. But Locke kept quiet about the hatch even after Boone fell and after he died. He didn't tell Sayid, got almost killed himself when Shannon tried to shoot him, and yet he continued lying. Locke talks about using his idea of discretion... No, he didn't... Sayid forced him to tell after Boone died and Shannon nearly killed him, and even then he didn't want to tell and lied.

As such, those viewpoints are crushed by Jack as quickly as possible.
I've shown above how he doesn't.

For someone who doesn't want to be leader, Jack claws like crazy to hold onto that position.

I like Jack's assessment: Everybody wants me to be a leader until I make a decision that they don't like.

If you're the appointed leader, then you are the leader. He's not worried about his competence (well not after White Rabbit). But it takes responsibility. And people shouldn't be niffy about it when he takes that responsibility, like it or not. The leader gets the right to withhold information, and has the right to know all information.

We don't know that. We haven't been to the radio tower, we don't know what's there.

Oh, so when we don't know anything people should follow Locke into the hatch, take action? But when we don't know anything we may not locate a radio source?

All this is pure speculation. The banging on the hatch was all about timing. If the timing was off, Desmond dies. You're assuming a lot of things in thinking that seeing The Pearl would cause Locke to go straight to the hatch. He would have had to bang on it by that evening, to save Desmond. Desmond would also need to be standing in a spot where he could hear the banging, and not playing music or making noise.

As you said, above, we don't know that :) I could answer the same to your speculation that otherwise Locke would not have saved Desmond. (BTW Desmond had already put the gun down, and was reading Penny's letter) But the plane was at the viewpoint to find the ? Twice the dreams led Locke and his companion to get to the top of the cliff. Twice it was about how it would help Locke with the hatch, and the button. And it may have well had different intentions than how Locke interpreted it (don't mistake coincidence for fate/destiny). ETA: And Desmond was not holding a gun to his head the moment Locke started banging away. Saving Desmond's life is relative after seeing Desmond's FB again.

What makes you think Smokey's objective was the question mark every time? I see no evidence of that.

Because twice the dreams/island/smokey wanted someone up the cliff. You could only see "?" if you were on the cliff looking down.

Everyone wants to feel special.

Yeah, but not everyone needs to be given a "sign", needs to believe in a destiny to feel special. Consider how we view the numbers... First you don't know much about them, except that they reappear again and again. Then you find out that they're a series of numbers to put in the puter to save the world. How many of us still watch the coincidence of the numbers now? Yeah, we notice it still, but it doesn't make us feel all giddy about how it's destiny anymore. It's more like, "Oh, yeah, there's the number again. No surprise that."

That's a nice philosophy, but it seems at odds with "Flashes Before Your Eyes." Self-destiny may not exist in the world of Lost.

Yeah, well for me it's not likely it was actually time travel. ETA: And what it showed was that he had made his own destiny. That was the point: stick to the choices you've made in the past, there's no going back, although you can forever repent about them.

Oh, try not to double-post, the mods frown on it. Edit your pre-existing post if necessary.
Perhaps there's is a misunderstanding: I consider double posting, as posting hte same thing twice by accident. But I'm starting to get that you mean, posting twice one ater the other even if it's different content. Is that right?

Homer Noodleman

02-23-07, 03:38 PM

The quintessential example of Locke's self-centered boobery is when he smashes the Perl computer. His feelings were hurt in the Swan when he realized he had been had yet again. So, stop pushing the button, and so what if Eko wastes his time on the thing?

Instead he makes it all about himself as he unilaterally decides that the button pushing will end. As usual with his unilateral decisions, it is a stupid one. Locke's a knucklehead.

sweetsunray

02-23-07, 03:55 PM

Thing is Locke remains to hang on to faith, even in non-faith. There's Desmond telling Locke he had been late with the numbers once, there had been a ystem failure, and then he shows the papers of the date and time of that system failure to Locke, but Locke still disbelieves it. Surely, Locke had noticed the magnetism in the hatch, right? But no, disbelief with him is as little based on facts and information as his belief. If Locke were ever an atheist, he'd be a religious one. You'd at least think he'd say, ok, let's take another 108 minutes to consider that information.

Susan B Anthony

02-26-07, 12:38 AM

sweetsunray, I can't match Sgt. Draino for the point-counterpoint, but just a couple of issues:

1) You mention that Smokey was trying to get somebody up the cliff so they could see the ?. But before Locke saw the map in "Lockedown" the ? would have meant nothing, other than, "weird, that dead grass kind of looks like a question mark."

2) Jack regularly insists on taking control of situations where he has no competence. One example that springs to mind is his insistence on running through the jungle after Claire and Charlie, when he has no experience tracking. Jack is the only doctor, and is extremely valuable to the group as a doctor. He shouldn't take unnecessary risks with his own life.

3) Jack tends to make snap decisions without gathering information. My favorite example is from "The Long Con." A few people are discussing what to do about the attack on Sun.

LOCKE: They told us they would leave us alone.

JACK: Well, John, it looks like they broke their promise.

LOCKE: We don't even know what happened.

JACK: Do we need to know?

The bottom line is that Jack is irritated by Locke and all his talk of destiny and faith, and so wants to do the opposite of whatever Locke wants. Jack is a surgeon and is accustomed to, and required to, make instant decisions and having his orders carried out without question. Good quality for a doctor. Not so great when stranded on an unnatural rock in the ocean where the regular rules clearly don't apply.

sweetsunray

02-26-07, 07:04 AM

1) You mention that Smokey was trying to get somebody up the cliff so they could see the ?. But before Locke saw the map in "Lockedown" the ? would have meant nothing, other than, "weird, that dead grass kind of looks like a question mark."

Hmmm... lemme envision that... Locke gets a dream, right after failing to get the hatch open. In the dream he gets information about Boone that nobody could have known unless from Boone directly. And he sees some beechcraft crashing on the island.
On his way over, limping, he asks Boone about the nanny, and thereby has a check that his dream is revealing something truthful. It's a verification he isn't imagining something. They see the Beechcraft up on the cliff.
A bit more perceptive, Locke could have said, watch out when you climb to that cliff. I saw you bloodied up, as if you took a deadly fall.
So, Locke gets all these signs... And let's say that Boone had seen the "?", with no Beechcraft hiding the "." of the "?" And would have shouted, "Hey, Locke there's a '?' created in this circular cleared field.
Hmmm, and Locke wouldn't have investigated it from top to bottom? He spent days and days looking at a hatch without a hand, made a whole apparatus fo rit, and he would be befuddled by the "?" ? Just a look at the "." would have revealed the door easily enough. And there wouldn't have been a Beechcraft hiding it.

I don't think it would have posed much of a problem to Locke at all.

2) Jack regularly insists on taking control of situations where he has no competence. One example that springs to mind is his insistence on running through the jungle after Claire and Charlie, when he has no experience tracking. Jack is the only doctor, and is extremely valuable to the group as a doctor. He shouldn't take unnecessary risks with his own life.

I've been thinking the same thing often. So I fully agree. I've been asking myself why nobody has made that argument to him before. Per example at the Black Rock when they were deciding about the dynamite.

Locke's preposition of the short straws is a method I can not condone. It's one of the worst methods to decide. We discourage its use in our leader training. Why neither Kate or Locke told him, "Doc, you're the only surgeon we have. We really can't have you be blown up by dynamite," is beyond me. Sayid would have come with such a level headed counter argument. Of course, hindsight tells us that it was smart of Jack to put the dynamite in his pack, because the way Kate ran around with her pack on her back, Hurley otherwise would have been obliged to say, "Dude, you've got some Kate there on your shirt."

3) Jack tends to make snap decisions without gathering information. My favorite example is from "The Long Con." A few people are discussing what to do about the attack on Sun.

Jack shouldn't lead alone. I agree. And Jack needs other people to form a team with to balance each other out... Jack is used to making split decisions and follow through on them, and have his orders followed up on the operating table. That's how he saves lives. The problem arises when he makes a bad decision. Life on the island is not a heart failure, or a cut artery. And he needs Locke, Sayid, Kate and Sawyer to form a discussion team to get his information and form the best decision on that, preferably one they can all live with, agree with.
But if you go through every epi, you'll notice that Jack starts out with trusting and accepting the judgements of these people. It's when each of them start to withhold information from him, that he starts to discount their advice more and more. Locke was the first by withholding the information about the hatch and Boone's accident. And from the Black Rock on, Locke starts to undermine Jack in front of the others.
Jack openly says he needs Kate's support. Although she's privately honest about her reasons to him, and does not undermine the de facto leadership of Jack, Kate goes straight against that request of his. I do feel that Kate made the right decision after Locke went his way anyway, but she did in fact undermine her own influence towards Jack by that action. After that the one action after the other makes her less and less trustworthy in Jack's eyes, in terms of loyalty. This includes withholding the information about the fake beard, the fake rag clothing and the medical hatch she found with Claire.
Sawyer cons him, using Kate. Not just out of the weapons but out of the medical supplies... Keeping the guns safe is ultimately good. But the medical supplies in Jack's eyes is something he needs in direct reach in case of an emergency and for the good of the whole group.
So by the end of S2 there's only person that he feels he can trust to take advice from: Sayid. This is even greatly symbolized in how Sayid wishes Jack not to tell Sawyer, Hurley and Kate about Michael being compromized.
And for many epis we now have Jack being alone. It is the manifestation of situation after situation where he felt betrayed by those he had initially relied on to influence him and keep him from making rash mistakes.

In several ways he has deepened or helped to create the rift between himself and his managers. And he needs to learn to glue those bonds again and recognize his own flaws: not letting go (he seems to have done that); his temper, impulsiveness and impatience (it seems that was the glass house he was looking at in Stranger in a Strange Land); seeing himself as the sole person who needs to carry the full responsibility to fix things (that still needs lots of work, and that I think can only be accomplished when others save him)... they are the negative results of the double edged sword that follows out of the trio traits commitment-emotionality-first initiative taker (aka being a mover) that merrited him the de facto leadership.

But of all those possible leaders he was the first to recognize their merrit and move them into initiative:
- Locke to save the guy who's leg is trapped underneath the plane
- Hurley to help Claire
- He's able to make feel Boone helpful in doing a task that keeps both Boone safe as well as the other people around Boone by having him search for pens (on Boone's proposals)
- Kate to help and assist him directly by asking her to sow him up
- Moving Kate moved Sayid into repairing the tranceiver (ironically this is the one she has a tie with through her past... her step(?)father was the one who introduced Sayid to Kelvin)
- Moving Kate moved Sawyer into coming on the hike (their connection is that her mom served him once)

This is Jack, at his freeest, without distrust, without the need to do everything by himself, etc... In our assessment weekends we have role play games (where I and another assesser play the nasty, annoying, demanding, nagging and even hostile tourists) and physical solving games.. and we make one of those sven the de facto leader. In the role play games by saying they are. In the physical games (such as form a life size square with a rope, and with persons standing in the middle of each side and in the corners, all blindfolded) we do it more subtly: in the square example we trust the rope into someone's hands. In doing that we give control of the game in one of those candidates hands, and then we watch what happens. Who is able to keep control, and who moves the others when the one in control can't manage. It's quite simple really once you're standing at the side watching it. But those who are in the game hardly have a conscious about it. They all do what they are first impelled to do.

I see that pilot as a snapshot of candidates in an assessment room. For me it's like handing that rope into on of those 8 blindfolded people and then just watch what happens for 15 mins. After Jack the second person that stands out for leadership is Sayid. Locke simply isn't the motivator of others. It's not his thing. The only situations where Locke ever got in the position to move someone, it was when that person had decided to follow him on their own accord (like Boone, or like Charlie) before that. That is why he can't be a de facto leader. But he's a super advizer.

Anyway, like with every character Jack detoriates over the last two seasons from this first image of perfect leadership. Which is really strange for us. It's as if they have his story backwards. Normally we have a person who we know to have traits but have not yet come out or are not yet developed, but grows and comes out on top. And the past seasons we have seen the reverse happening, and you could say we've seen the reverse happen in each character. Their past lives have come up to catch them from behind.

Not to mention that in comparison to S2, at least the Losties seems a community in S1. But that's pretty normal. S1 is a pseudo community where everyone tries to be on their best behaviour. It's a group of individuals, not a group. Once they do start to form a group, they naturally start to fight, bicker, and show up their egos to protect their turf, their role, their position in the group.. It's called the chaos phase, and in management terms the storm phase. They've all come to a point towards the end of S2 and the start of S3 to the emptying phase, where each individual has to look within, shed their past and become reborn and reach for what they value. On mini team scale that's known as the norm phase. Phase four is where they come together and start to actually work together, and actually manage to succeed, and fully appreciate each other's assets as well as respect their drawbacks.

More examples of seemingly reversing, or detoriation:
Kate starts out almost immediately attached to a man she respects greatly, and yet independent. And she does the most unselfish things. And she doesn't run. But now she's attached to the man she claimed to detest because he reminded her so much of the father she murdered, and she murdered him because she wanted to kill that part of herself she detested. Her detoriation is that from a woman who loves herself and thereby capable of care and trust to anybody else, into a woman who detests herself, and made herself dependent.

Locke starts out as this warrior, this hunter, having great faith in life, and is the image of a man that demands respect and awe, not someone to trifle with, someone people listen to. But he soon left his hunter path, then lost respect with Boone's accident, became an absolute unbeliever (even in defiance of the rational evidence before him) and at the start of S3 had lost his voice, couldn't even speak.

Sayid starts out as a succesful communicator and receiver of communications: he manages to capture Danielle's message, speaks to the crowd, and apart from Sawyer is trusted without even a blink of the eye by Jack, and he is the seeker of truth. But as the epis wear on, he lost his touch. Doesn't even manage a smoke signal fire succesfully, urges Jack to be silent, and Sun to lie. Sayid himself has become the liar.

We're not used to regression in a storyline, we expect the opposite. We expect that the start of a storyline shows the worst of people and that they grow from there. And that each person's FB shows what they're struggling with, what they need to overcome. But actually that FB is already the first step backwards, the first regression... the first doubt away from their best selves (except for Sawyer). And it becomes worse, until we've hit the bottom low. It's now time for the growth. And if they all do, then we've already seen a glimpse of the end result: the people they were at the very start on the island.

But in the sense of group dynamics the characters begin with presenting their best self, then regress to their darkest self into chaos, to then realize this low and climb up again, and even reach a high they could never aim for by themselves. The moment that we are used to start a storyline in a book starts approximately where we are now with everybody on the island.

The bottom line is that Jack is irritated by Locke and all his talk of destiny and faith, and so wants to do the opposite of whatever Locke wants. Jack is a surgeon and is accustomed to, and required to, make instant decisions and having his orders carried out without question. Good quality for a doctor. Not so great when stranded on an unnatural rock in the ocean where the regular rules clearly don't apply.

I disagree. It's Locke who starts to clearly make an opposing stand, after he also already went on his solo path in all of this.

As for the craphole island... in order to accept each other, they must first come to know each other. These people don't have the room or space to get to know each other softly. They don't only need to work together, but sleep, eat, and whatnotwhat. People can try to be at their best in such situations for about a week. Another week and they start to get irritated, start to get wanting some space, some air ot breath and be themselves. At the end of two weeks, there's sure to be blows. It ain't easy to live together with someone you chose to live (like a partner you love and know for a while), let alone people you know nothing about.

sgtdraino

02-26-07, 11:16 PM

I agree though, that Jack perhaps should not have made Locke asnwer to him at that moment.

Locke was doing his thing, minding his own business, Jack asked him what he was doing. What do you think he should have done? Lied? Stopped what he was doing?

She consults with the leader and with tact (=privately), even though she'll do what she thinks is best.

Locke and Jack had their "private" conversation back at the hatch. You really think Locke coming privately to Jack again would have earned him any points? I don't think so. Jack would have just shot him down again.

Well, we knew that. But how would the Losties have known that? They didn't know the Others were only after Walt on the raft.

Herein lies the problem with interpreting the actions of the John Locke character. It has been made crystal clear that Locke is sometimes privy to information nobody else has. He is given information by Smokey/The Island, and the audience is often not aware of just how much or how little insight Locke has into a given situation. Maybe Locke had insight into this situation? No way to know for sure.

There are times when people can do their own stuff, without consulting anyone about it. There are times when people can do their own stuff, and at least warn someone about it. Other times they need to consult about it.

Well, you and I obviously disagree on this point, but in my opinion this circumstance was clearly one in which Locke doing his own thing had absolutely NO EFFECT on Jack trying to calm the masses. Case in point: The masses in fact did not panic and run screaming into the jungle, when Locke left.

True, you don't need to treat people like sheep all the time. It's called situational leadership.

As a police sergeant I have ample training and experience in this area. IMO, Jack handled the situation badly from the start (back at the hatch), and continued badly when he put Locke on the spot. If the 815s had a formal command structure, then obviously Locke should have handled the situation differently. But they do NOT have such a structure. I say Locke was perfectly within his rights to do his own thing, and really gave Jack more slack than he had to, by saying positive things about Jack's proposal.

And here must agree to disagree. To me he had no short term interest for the safety of the group, which is what matters at moment of crises (and to the Losties who didn't know the Others were not coming, but thinking they would be coming it was a moment o crises). To explore it, they needed time and a skilled team, and take great risks. They had no way to know what was down there. For all they knew it could have contained Others, or Smokey.

They knew this from the start, but still intended to go in.

To go in, in such time consuming and obvious perilous circumstances (no ladder,

Really didn't take long to rig up that harness.

quarantine on the inside,

Which, as was pretty obvious to most of us around here, meant it is the OUTSIDE that is quarantined.

while not even knowing it would benefit the group the only reasonable thing to do was call the project off.

The whole point of the project was to find out if it would benefit the group. Why call it off, just when they're about to do that? Would the hatch be somehow different the next day?

Here's a quote from Exodus 3:

LOCKE: Survival is all relative, Jack.

This once again falls into the "how much does Locke know" category. What does it matter if the 815s survive an attack from the others, if the timer goes all the way down and destroys the entire world? Survival really IS relative. I think Locke had some sort of information that the hatch really was that important.

Jack was not playing gotcha. Jack was reminding him of the main reason why they went fo rthe dynamite and open the hatch.

Well, he was and he wasn't. I believe Jack genuinely dislikes Locke, because of Locke's faith in things Jack cannot quantify, and also because Jack is paranoid. He tends to automatically suspect the worst in others. He automatically jumps to the worst conclusion, that Locke is some nut who doesn't care about the group.

What betrays it is the language reference. Those who talk of "we" and those who don't.

Both Locke and Jack talk of "we."

It was too time consuming, too risky from that point on, without knowing what was down there.

The risk was negligible, there was absolutely nothing to be gained by waiting.

Giving orders as a leader at times of crises is horrendous, but endangering someone's life and attacking people for some unknown mysterious possible benefit is defendable?

You could argue that when Jack tackled Hurley, to keep him from getting close to the dynamite, he "attacked" him. Actions are relative to the intent and knowledge a person has about the situation. Locke has reasons for doing the things he does, we the audience are simply not privy to those reasons a lot of times. It's part of the mystery of the character, and it's fitting that interpreting the actions of this man of faith, literally comes down to an act of faith on the part of the viewer. We are trying to get inside Locke's head. We don't know what he knows, we can only guess. Our stance on Locke's actions ultimately comes down to our own faith in why he does things. Based on what I've observed about the character, what tptb have said about Locke being motivated by "what's best for all of us," and the established fact the Locke does receive real and relevant information from Smokey, I believe that Locke does have good reasons for the things he does. Ultimately, he may still be mistaken (and everyone is on occasion), but I trust that motive, and I put SOME credence in the source of his information.

It's exactly because he knows nothing that he must make the safest decision.

What safest decision? They opened the hatch. The only difference between scenario A and scenario B is that the ladder is broken, and they gotta make a rope first. You think if the ladder was NOT broken, that they would not have gone down and checked things out right away? Jack caves in way too easily to defeat, for plans that are not his, and is way too stubborn when it comes to pursuing his own plans.

Yeah, he and Hurley could have gone back to camp and just let Kate and Locke explore and not care about their safety ... but we know how that ended up: they were taken captive.

A situation which Locke was key in extracting them from, and which Jack was only escalating. Jack is a hothead, and has this tendency to just flip out and scream at people.

Locke makes it personal with his "Why don't you want to go down there, Jack?" after he already gave his reasons, in front of everyone.

Jack is a bully, and his reasons were not rational. Locke intuited that Jack had some personal reason for not wanting to go down there. He spoke his mind.

Jack's Locke problem comment is made as a situation assesment... he's pointing to the conflict position Locke is taking. And he's not doing it in front of everyone.

Jack thinks Locke is insane, and was essentially plotting behind the scenes, predicting a time when he and whatever supporters he had gathered would move openly against Locke. Had other circumstances not intervened, you can bet he would have had that private talk with a lot of other 815s. It's backstabbing, it's nasty, and I don't think we've ever seen Locke do that sort of thing.

I disagree. He's concerned about everyone's safety.

In interviews, I recall tptb saying Jack is a leader, but is plagued by self-doubt, and fear of failure. For all his talk, he is extremely insecure. It is that insecurity that causes him to lash out at anyone who has a different way of doing things.

Any good leader is afraid to make mistakes and afraid to fail.

True, but GOOD leader doesn't let that fear handicap his judgement.

But I disagree with the statement that he sees any alternate viewpoint as a threat.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, too. :)

He actually does listen to arguments of others, is able to say, "Obviously you have a plan on your mind, let's hear it,"

When I hear him say that, it's with an air of contempt and dismissiveness.

Ok, so sometimes he's reluctant, but he's able to agree with the arguments of others:

You will admit that Jack has favorites. He is somewhat more likely to listen to plans, depending on the source. However, I'd argue the ONLY person he regularly gives any credence to is Sayid. Anyone else, severe trust issues.

- the plan to have Ana Lucia questin Benry: and it was here that Locke needed to make it known that he did not need to consult with Jack. So it's Locke who has the ego problem, not Jack. That is what makes him so irritating,

This was back when Ben was doing his psychological thing on Locke, which felt pretty forced, contrived, and unnatural to me. Locke never displayed an ego problem before, and after the hatch stuff was over with, hasn't since. But bad writing or not, it happened. For a brief period of time, Locke had an ego problem. Jack's got one every fraggin day.

- Boone going to look for pens: this was quite interesting really... Boone was incompetent, and he has Boone out of the way doing something that doesn't need to be done, but at least Boone thinks he's been doing something helpful on his own intiative

Actually, this is a great example of the contemptuous way Jack has of treating people like sheep. It is extremely poor leadership, of the potential-to-backfire type. Like Hurley says, Jack's bedside manner sucks.

- Kate going on the Boar hunt, especially once he learns her full plan about the transceiver

An idea he didn't like, but realized he couldn't stop from happening.

- Claire's suggestion for the obituaries

Another idea he pretty obviously thought was stupid, and refused to take part in.

- Boone's suggestion to talk to Rose

He didn't want to do that either, but saw no way out without looking like a complete ass.

- The conversation with Locke in White Rabbit

That was a nice moment, back before the character evolved into a complete ass-hat.

- Kate, Locke, Charlie and Jack exploring the caves... He takes Charlie's suggestion, backed up by Locke

I notice a lot of these are early season 1. I do actually remember a time when I didn't completely dislike the Jack character. This was probably a time when you didn't think Locke was totally nuts either. Both characters were stronger back then. Times, I think we can agree, have changed since then.

And that is from S1 alone... I can give you more of S2, a lot of it Locke's suggestions.

Nice details. Yeah, let's see some S2. Sorry, don't have time at present to come up with a bunch of detailed ass-hatty Jack interactions, but I'll work on it as soon as I can. Promise. :)

I like Jack's assessment: Everybody wants me to be a leader until I make a decision that they don't like.

True of all leaders. I still think Jack is incompetent, though.

If you're the appointed leader, then you are the leader.

Of course, Jack wasn't really appointed the leader. It's just a role he sort of assumed. That is probably the biggest problem the 815s have, no formal leadership structure. This is fine for short term crises, but they've been on the island for more than a month now.

He's not worried about his competence (well not after White Rabbit).

I completely disagree with this, and so do the creators of the show.

The leader gets the right to withhold information, and has the right to know all information.

The leader never knows everything, and a really GOOD leader shouldn't even try. Part of being a good leader is delegating responsibility to other competent people, and trusting that they will do the right thing. Jack is a micromanager, who has difficulty trusting anyone, even himself. The only one he comes close to trusting is Sayid, and one man is not enough.

Oh, so when we don't know anything people should follow Locke into the hatch, take action? But when we don't know anything we may not locate a radio source?

We the audience don't know, the other 815s don't know, but it's an established fact that Locke has insight into the island that everyone else does not.

I could answer the same to your speculation that otherwise Locke would not have saved Desmond. (BTW Desmond had already put the gun down, and was reading Penny's letter)

Desmond himself says that Locke saved his life. Good enough for me.

Yeah, well for me it's not likely it was actually time travel. ETA: And what it showed was that he had made his own destiny. That was the point: stick to the choices you've made in the past, there's no going back, although you can forever repent about them.

The point to me was a lot more specific than that: If things don't unfold as they're supposed to, everyone dies.

btw, isn't it interesting that, even though Desmond alters events via lightning rods and such, he still "remembers" updated versions of what's going to happen? (i.e. Charlie drowning instead)

But I'm starting to get that you mean, posting twice one ater the other even if it's different content. Is that right?

Correct.

Instead he makes it all about himself as he unilaterally decides that the button pushing will end. As usual with his unilateral decisions, it is a stupid one. Locke's a knucklehead.

Agreed, that was stupid. Of course, we'll disagree on whether or not this was bad writing and completely out of character. I bet that a poll would show most people side with that view, though. Season 2 Locke freak-out was the exception, not the rule.

sweetsunray, I can't match Sgt. Draino for the point-counterpoint, but just a couple of issues:

1) You mention that Smokey was trying to get somebody up the cliff so they could see the ?. But before Locke saw the map in "Lockedown" the ? would have meant nothing, other than, "weird, that dead grass kind of looks like a question mark."

Exactly. And in any event, you'd have to know what Smokey was thinking in order to assume the ? was the target every time. There is not enough evidence for that.

2) Jack regularly insists on taking control of situations where he has no competence.

3) Jack tends to make snap decisions without gathering information.

Great points, Susan B Anthony.

The bottom line is that Jack is irritated by Locke and all his talk of destiny and faith, and so wants to do the opposite of whatever Locke wants. Jack is a surgeon and is accustomed to, and required to, make instant decisions and having his orders carried out without question. Good quality for a doctor. Not so great when stranded on an unnatural rock in the ocean where the regular rules clearly don't apply.

Agreed, 100 percent.

I've been thinking the same thing often. So I fully agree. I've been asking myself why nobody has made that argument to him before.

Locke has made that argument to Jack on at least one occasion, when they were hunting Ethan right after Claire and Charlie were taken. "Be the doctor." Naturally, Jack refuses to listen.

Locke's preposition of the short straws is a method I can not condone. It's one of the worst methods to decide.

Sometimes a random decision is better than no decision. Or at least an apparently random decision. ;)

Why neither Kate or Locke told him, "Doc, you're the only surgeon we have. We really can't have you be blown up by dynamite," is beyond me.

He would not have listened. That's why I wonder if the straws weren't rigged somehow by Locke, in order to protect the 815's doctor. btw, it turned out okay, but it was grossly irresponsible of Jack to carry that dynamite.

But if you go through every epi, you'll notice that Jack starts out with trusting and accepting the judgements of these people. It's when each of them start to withhold information from him, that he starts to discount their advice more and more.

Jack did start out the series appearing to be a more reasonable person. But where you see a gradual breakdown in trust, I see an evolution of the character. People often seem more reasonable until you get to know them. Then their natural ass-hattiness comes into play. That is the evolution of Jack. :) He never did trust his fellow 815s, he was just better at hiding it early on.

In several ways he has deepened or helped to create the rift between himself and his managers. And he needs to learn to glue those bonds again and recognize his own flaws: not letting go (he seems to have done that); his temper, impulsiveness and impatience

On this, we are in agreement. I think the first step in this would be establishing a formal hierarchy among the 815s. They need to have a vote. As it is now, they have no formal structure. Anyone who wants to can feel fine going and doing their own thing, because nobody ever really agreed to follow any sorts of rules.

Secondly, Jack (if elected) needs to learn to trust his lieutenants, or at least fake it. He needs to not micromanage and try to keep abreast of every little detail.

After Jack the second person that stands out for leadership is Sayid.

Correct. Actually, I still think Sayid is probably a better leader than Jack. Usually has good judgement, more willing to hear people out, and much less prone to blow up.

Locke simply isn't the motivator of others. It's not his thing. The only situations where Locke ever got in the position to move someone, it was when that person had decided to follow him on their own accord (like Boone, or like Charlie) before that. That is why he can't be a de facto leader. But he's a super advizer.

Well, I would argue that Locke has a different leadership style. In the most recent episodes, Locke has certainly seemed capable of getting the 815s moving and acting cohesively. I would agree that Locke has no desire to lead, and would much prefer to advise. And, while too much desire to lead can be a bad thing, a good leader probably should have some desire to do the job.

Anyway, like with every character Jack detoriates over the last two seasons from this first image of perfect leadership. Which is really strange for us.

Yep! Good observation. I think it's mostly that the writers gradually figure out how they want characters to be, and what directions they want to take them in.

Locke starts out as this warrior, this hunter, having great faith in life, and is the image of a man that demands respect and awe, not someone to trifle with, someone people listen to. But he soon left his hunter path, then lost respect with Boone's accident, became an absolute unbeliever (even in defiance of the rational evidence before him) and at the start of S3 had lost his voice, couldn't even speak.

Why stop there? Locke's done some significant things since that, why not explore current events?

But in the sense of group dynamics the characters begin with presenting their best self, then regress to their darkest self into chaos, to then realize this low and climb up again, and even reach a high they could never aim for by themselves.

True. I've hypothesized the first three seasons of Lost coincide with the virtues Hope, Faith, and Charity. If the pattern continues, Season 4 is Wisdom.

boonian androphile

02-27-07, 12:36 AM

Hmmm... lemme envision that... Locke gets a dream, right after failing to get the hatch open. In the dream he gets information about Boone that nobody could have known unless from Boone directly. And he sees some beechcraft crashing on the island.
On his way over, limping, he asks Boone about the nanny, and thereby has a check that his dream is revealing something truthful. It's a verification he isn't imagining something. They see the Beechcraft up on the cliff.
A bit more perceptive, Locke could have said, watch out when you climb to that cliff. I saw you bloodied up, as if you took a deadly fall.

I am glad that you have brought this up in this way. This is the part of Locke's tale that Locke neglects to divulge when bearing his soul to his fellow hallucinators. Had he been this candid, maybe the response to Locke would have been: The Island meant for you to warn/save Boone just as you attempted to save Eko. Not only, if this were discussed on the actual television screen, would I feel better, but it would strengthen Locke's own story which is in serious danger of becoming even more second-rate. Maybe Locke would then trust the visions more and would not have trusted the deus ex machina lightbulb. But then we would have to meet Desmond in some other way. Okay then...fine by me...:D

sweetsunray

02-27-07, 01:06 AM

A few quick replies, sgtdraino...

You note how Jack wasn't keen on those ideas, of the examples I gave... Well that was exactly my point. You claimed that Jack always wants to have his own way. And I went specifically in search of examples of ideas he did not particularly like, but ended up agreeing to, despite his early misgivings.
As for the argument, "yeah, but he lets another do it then." So what? A leader's supposed to stimulate a person whenever they can, including letting those who come with an idea for an initiative to actually be the motor of that initiative.
Letting Boone go find his pens was excellent situational leadership. Boone was a very willing iniative taker, but he has little skill. You don't stop someone from taking iniative, but you keep those iniatives limited to a field where they don't do harm. Boone felt he had done something worthwhile, had helped the doctor, because if not with Rose, Jack may use those pens for other emergencies. Note also, how Jack kept on including Boone in the emergency, if only to guard a patient.
A simple example would be having someone in a group who can't for the life of him read a map, but is very eager to help. There are several ways around to keep the guy in wanting to help, and yet make sure you don't end up lost.

As for formal leadership structure... for communities no bigger than 100 people you don't need a structurized, formal leadership. They need acephalic leadership with their numbers, that is there is no formal leadership, and leadership switches depending on the tasks. This is the almost automatic form of (non-)leadership within community bands.

Everyday living and health, macromanagement -> Jack
Social everyday living -> Kate
Communications and militaristic -> Sayid
Hunting and tracking -> Locke, in a lesser extent Kate
Horticulturing -> Sun
Food division, relaxing, keeping track of social knowledge -> Hurley (whether he likes the first or not)
Fishing and anything with boats -> Jin
Economy and archivarian -> Sawyer

You've referred to the need of getting the rules down... in a formal team situation that means the "norm" phase. I agree that we are at the start of that phase. But this is not a formal team, nor is the group formed out of employees, but a social community living together day in and day out. Community phases are "Pseudo community" (aka FORM), "Chaos" (aka STORM), "Emptiness" (not so aka NORM) and "True community" (aka PERFORM+TRANSFORMATION). The difference between emptiness and norm is that emptiness phase is about shedding ego that is holding each one of them back from being truly close (it's a psychological process). Norm is about rules of interaction, and does not necessarily have any bearance on the inner process of each individual.

I have not mentioned any other character evolvement beyond the bottom low of each character described there, because my point was to compare each reverse journey to their deepest point. Some characters starter earlier with ther reversal than others, and also hit rock bottom earlier than other characters. But I'll say that Locke seems to have improved after he cleaned up his mess. Let's just wait and see. He seemed to me the first to reverse the earliest, and may be climbing again the earliest. Although, well Charlie and perhaps Sawyer were ahead of Locke in hitting rock bottom earlier.

sgtdraino

02-27-07, 03:52 AM

I am glad that you have brought this up in this way. This is the part of Locke's tale that Locke neglects to divulge when bearing his soul to his fellow hallucinators. Had he been this candid, maybe the response to Locke would have been: The Island meant for you to warn/save Boone just as you attempted to save Eko.

It's a theory, but not supported by the evidence. In fact, The Island/Smokey affirms that Boone was indeed the sacrifice it demanded. I'm convinced that everything that happened regarding Boone, happened according to Smokey's design. The brief flash of bloody Boone may simply have been to make Locke feel guiltier afterwards. It wasn't enough to convey any useful information that would have prevented Boone's death. Again, remember that Boone died because he failed to heed Locke's repeated warnings.

A few quick replies, sgtdraino...

You note how Jack wasn't keen on those ideas, of the examples I gave... Well that was exactly my point.

So... you agree that Jack tends to dislike any idea that is not his own?

Letting Boone go find his pens was excellent situational leadership. Boone was a very willing iniative taker, but he has little skill. You don't stop someone from taking iniative, but you keep those iniatives limited to a field where they don't do harm. Boone felt he had done something worthwhile, had helped the doctor, because if not with Rose, Jack may use those pens for other emergencies.

I've studied situational leadership, and you and I will just have to disagree on this one too. I still say it's the worst example of that. Giving your people pointless work is stupid, because people tend to figure out eventually that they're being snowed. Giving someone pointless work conveys the message that you think they're stupid or incompetent. Use the pens for other emergencies? Come on, that never happened. And offhand, I can't remember Boone ever trying to help Jack to that degree again. Boone wasn't an idiot, he was just an inexperienced kid in need of some guidance.

A simple example would be having someone in a group who can't for the life of him read a map, but is very eager to help. There are several ways around to keep the guy in wanting to help, and yet make sure you don't end up lost.

People tend to all have their own individual strengths. You can find truly useful ways for them to contribute. Make-work will just burn bridges.

As for formal leadership structure... for communities no bigger than 100 people you don't need a structurized, formal leadership.

Maybe in a peaceful environment, without much danger. The island is not that. I also don't think you can generalize that no formal leadership is needed for groups under 100. That depends on the kinds of people in the group, and the environment they are living in.

They need acephalic leadership with their numbers, that is there is no formal leadership, and leadership switches depending on the tasks.

All I can say, is that they don't have formal leadership now, and that is costing them.

Community phases are "Pseudo community" (aka FORM), "Chaos" (aka STORM), "Emptiness" (not so aka NORM) and "True community" (aka PERFORM+TRANSFORMATION).

I've got a Masters in Sociology. As such, I have had all I really want to of pseudo-intellectual social science jargon. Please try to stick to plain english. If not for me, then for the other board members without higher degrees in Psychology and Sociology.

I have not mentioned any other character evolvement beyond the bottom low of each character described there, because my point was to compare each reverse journey to their deepest point.

You're posting in a thread entitled, "His whole lifes a faliure" <sic>. You started with statements like:

I thought Locke was interesting the first few epi's, but ever since he stopped hunting boar and was focused on the hatch, I've mistrusted him.

Locke's flaw is not that he has faith, but that he only has faith in his own judgement and never second-guesses himself. He's self-righteous.

Charlie said that if there was one he'd entrust his life with it would be Locke. I'd say the absolute opposite. I would not want Locke as a leader of mine, not until he has the ability to second guess himself.

These are statements in the present-tense, statements that this is how you feel the character currently is, not remarks about how Locke was at his lowest point.

But I'll say that Locke seems to have improved after he cleaned up his mess. Let's just wait and see.

True enough. Looks like we won't have to wait long! :)

boonian androphile

02-27-07, 04:30 AM

You win Sgt. Draino! When Locke falls into some other stupid mess (if we ever see him do something other than just stand around) maybe I will post another statement you can have at:D. Maybe you can send your arguments to TPTB so that they might forget about Jack for one or two episodes and so that we might see the great Locke from the past. Meanwhile :Cheers:

sweetsunray

02-27-07, 12:18 PM

So... you agree that Jack tends to dislike any idea that is not his own?

Only when he has formed an opinion about it already. He's just sceptical, cautious then, and desires some arguments. Don't we all?

I've studied situational leadership, and you and I will just have to disagree on this one too. I still say it's the worst example of that. Giving your people pointless work is stupid, because people tend to figure out eventually that they're being snowed. Giving someone pointless work conveys the message that you think they're stupid or incompetent.
I teach situational leadership. Let's not forget that at the same time, Jack was having to breath life back into Rose. But Jack didn't end up giving Boone useless work: he asked him to keep watch over the guy with shrapnel in his stomach on the same day.

Use the pens for other emergencies? Come on, that never happened.
That's hindsight speaking. At the time Boone proposed it, Jack was only inspecting his second patient. 5 mins later someone could have been shouting that someone was choking from around the corner.

People tend to all have their own individual strengths. You can find truly useful ways for them to contribute.

Yeah, but then you need to have to know people a little better, than just 1 min while seeing them breath air in someone's stomach instead of their lungs.

Maybe in a peaceful environment, without much danger. The island is not that. I also don't think you can generalize that no formal leadership is needed for groups under 100. That depends on the kinds of people in the group, and the environment they are living in.

Ah. Do you think stone age, bush tribes in the wild live in a peaceful environment? And yet that is exactly the leadership they have.

All I can say, is that they don't have formal leadership now, and that is costing them.

I've got a Masters in Sociology. As such, I have had all I really want to of pseudo-intellectual social science jargon. Please try to stick to plain english. If not for me, then for the other board members without higher degrees in Psychology and Sociology.

Here they go
On FORM-STORM-NORM-PERFORM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming-storming-norming-performing

And on Community building
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#Community_building

You're posting in a thread entitled, "His whole lifes a faliure" <sic>. You started with statements like:

Does that now mean that even if I don't trust Locke, that I think he's a failure? I read some posts in here, and then posted my own opinion, but I never said I thought Locke was a failure

These are statements in the present-tense, statements that this is how you feel the character currently is, not remarks about how Locke was at his lowest point.

Hmhmmm. I still feel that way. I haven't seen much before, during and perhaps the small time after his regression that gave me trust him as a leader. I trusted him as a person on his skill at first, as the hunter. But once he stopped that, heck continued to search on a path he knew could have little to do with Ethan, Charlie or Claire (while they were being kidnapped), I couldn't trust him on that anymore. And the way he brought people in physical danger (such as Boone tied up at the hatch) only made him more anti-pathic for me. So, yeah, I have a great mistrust of Locke. I've seen something positive, but it'll need some work from him for me to overcome that. But I'm willing to change my mind.

sweetsunray

02-28-07, 01:14 AM

A thought occurred to me, sgtdraino. Yeah, we've learned in S3 that Boone was a sacrifice to the island, but a sacrifice for what? What happened after Boone died. Ok, so we had Locke slamming the hatch. But something else happened. It forced the other Losties to confront Locke about what he was doing, to come out with his secret. And he was very reluctant about it. What if the Helper saw no other way anymore than to force Locke to reveal the hatch. Had Locke told much earlier, voluntarily, then one of the other Losties could have mentioned the dynamite, and they could have opened the hatch much sooner.
Boone's havid about Shannon and the monster was about the Helper noticing Locke and Boone messing with the hatch, and wanting to find out what the heck they were doing there. In the form of Shannon, it manages Boone to tell what is going on.
Looked at in that way, Locke was partly responsible of Boone ending up as a sacrifice. By keeping it a secret, he forced the Helper to expose Locke's find.
It occurred several times amongst the Losties, but especially imo with Locke. Locke kept island stuff secret: the hatch, the pearl. He's not open to the possible input other people may have. He doesn't even believe other people can help him. He seems to have the belief that because the Helper communicates with him he can figure it out by himself.

- Locke is forced to ask help from Boone after his leg was hurt with the Deus Ex Machina device breaking and cutting his leg, which prompts Boone to climb the cliff (whether to fall for his death or to see "?")
- Boone dies after Locke held back information about his havid, and arguments can be made that Boone was supposed to find the "?" mark
- Locke is forced to reveal the hatch and the beechcraft to Sayid after Boone died, which leads to revealing it to Jack, which leads to them getting the dynamite
- Locke is forced to reveal the button to Ben, because he's trapped and see a pointer to ? again
- Locke is forced via Eko to get back to the ?, and again he's forced to require Eko to climb the cliff for him
- Locke is forced to ask help from Charlie who he put down to guard him during his sweat lodge by not having his voice
- Locke is forced to go back to ? in pursuit of Eko with a whole bunch of people he had not told the existence of the pearl, where others propose him to hook up the TV sets to something else and somebody else than him (Sayid) must do it. And very pointedly, Locke comments, "Well, I'm suddenly feeling very stupid."

What does the Helper, and circumstance force Locke to do, constantly? To ask help from his fellow Losties, especially when he wants to keep secrets from those who are at least his equals in skill and knowledge, or when he thinks he's better than somebody else.

sgtdraino

02-28-07, 03:56 AM

Only when he has formed an opinion about it already. He's just sceptical, cautious then, and desires some arguments. Don't we all?

Not like that. A good leader doesn't automatically come at others' suggestions from a position of "this is going to be a crap idea." Open mind.

And, btw, you double-posted again. Dude, just edit your previous post. It's really easy.

I teach situational leadership.

lol. Well, I suppose I could take a page out of the Jack Shephard Book of Situation Leadership, and say, "Yeah, well you need to seriously think about giving that license back," but unlike Jack, I'm not a dick. ;)

Ah. Do you think stone age, bush tribes in the wild live in a peaceful environment? And yet that is exactly the leadership they have.

The 815s are not a stone age bush tribe.

Here they go
On FORM-STORM-NORM-PERFORM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming-storming-norming-performing

And on Community building
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#Community_building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck#Community_building)

Dude, I learned about it for years. I'm not doubting you have sources, I simply don't like jargon, don't see a need for it, and have no desire to learn it. Again.

Does that now mean that even if I don't trust Locke, that I think he's a failure? I read some posts in here, and then posted my own opinion, but I never said I thought Locke was a failure

Somehow this thread is devolving into a discussion on the leadership characteristics (or lack thereof) of Jack, as compared to Locke. I suppose this shouldn't surprise me, since you're a member of the "Society for The Advancement of Understanding Jack Shephard," but maybe a discussion of Jack's leadership qualities would best be served by its own thread. Doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic.

Hmhmmm. I still feel that way. I haven't seen much before, during and perhaps the small time after his regression that gave me trust him as a leader. I trusted him as a person on his skill at first, as the hunter. But once he stopped that, heck continued to search on a path he knew could have little to do with Ethan, Charlie or Claire (while they were being kidnapped), I couldn't trust him on that anymore. And the way he brought people in physical danger (such as Boone tied up at the hatch) only made him more anti-pathic for me. So, yeah, I have a great mistrust of Locke. I've seen something positive, but it'll need some work from him for me to overcome that. But I'm willing to change my mind.

You seem to have a very similar mindset towards Locke that Jack Shephard himself has, which I guess shouldn't be surprising. You have very little trust in things that you cannot see. Unlike Jack, we as audience members at least know that Locke isn't just doing things willy-nilly; he has information via Smokey that tells him he must do things, for important reasons. You seem to think that, except for the specific instances we see Locke get a message from Smokey, Locke's actions are completely on his own initiative for his own reasons. I see no evidence of that. I think there is good reason to believe that Locke gets all kinds of insights and information from Smokey that we are not privy to.

A thought occurred to me, sgtdraino. Yeah, we've learned in S3 that Boone was a sacrifice to the island, but a sacrifice for what?

To save Desmond, and ultimately turn the failsafe key.

What happened after Boone died. Ok, so we had Locke slamming the hatch. But something else happened. It forced the other Losties to confront Locke about what he was doing, to come out with his secret.

I actually believe you are right about that, but don't have quite the same take on it. I believe Locke was instructed that the hatch needed to be kept a secret for as long as possible. That if the 815s learned about it too early, something bad would result. Ultimately, the 815s learned about the hatch when they were supposed to, due to the scenario set up by Smokey.

He doesn't even believe other people can help him. He seems to have the belief that because the Helper communicates with him he can figure it out by himself.

I used to believe that keeping secrets was part of Locke's nature, that he tends to keep too many unnecessary secrets. Now, however, I tend to believe Locke mostly kept secrets because he was instructed to do so, by Smokey.

- Locke is forced to reveal the button to Ben, because he's trapped and see a pointer to ? again
- Locke is forced via Eko to get back to the ?, and again he's forced to require Eko to climb the cliff for him

Anything that takes place during Locke's "dark time" isn't gonna hold much water with me. Seemed to me like he was acting out of character, and in any event, he was simply not "on his game" during that time period. We all have our bad days.

- Locke is forced to ask help from Charlie who he put down to guard him during his sweat lodge by not having his voice

What forced? What did he need Charlie to do? I don't really even see why Charlie was there at all, except as a narrative device.

- Locke is forced to go back to ? in pursuit of Eko with a whole bunch of people he had not told the existence of the pearl, where others propose him to hook up the TV sets to something else and somebody else than him (Sayid) must do it.

Forced how? You think Locke resisted involving others? Seemed more to me like, "hey, anyone who wants to come, let's go!" Way more involvement than Jack ever initiated.

And very pointedly, Locke comments, "Well, I'm suddenly feeling very stupid."

lol. Locke was channeling one of the writers, in regards to the presence of Nikki and Paulo. ;)

sweetsunray

02-28-07, 05:19 AM

Not like that. A good leader doesn't automatically come at others' suggestions from a position of "this is going to be a crap idea." Open mind.

That's not how he sounds to me.

And, btw, you double-posted again. Dude, just edit your previous post. It's really easy.

Because it was a different idea.

The 815s are not a stone age bush tribe.
Strawman argument. That's not what I said.

Dude, I learned about it for years. I'm not doubting you have sources, I simply don't like jargon, don't see a need for it, and have no desire to learn it. Again.

Although, I'm discussing directly with you, that doesn't mean I can clarify with links for others who might read it (I said "here they go"). You pointed out I was using jargon, so I posted links that clarifies the jargon. You also referred to it as pseudo-social. Those links clarify it isn't. But if I feel like using it, I guess I have the right to, instead of making up my own words for it.

Somehow this thread is devolving into a discussion on the leadership characteristics (or lack thereof) of Jack, as compared to Locke. I suppose this shouldn't surprise me, since you're a member of the "Society for The Advancement of Understanding Jack Shephard," but maybe a discussion of Jack's leadership qualities would best be served by its own thread. Doesn't seem to have much to do with the topic.

perhaps yes.

You seem to have a very similar mindset towards Locke that Jack Shephard himself has, which I guess shouldn't be surprising. You have very little trust in things that you cannot see.

We are discussing characters here, not ourselves. Please leave off the personal touch. You don't know me. Let's just say that I have been down Locke's path regarding visions and coincidences. That path can be very useful, up to a point. But you need to walk it with severe caution, certainly when it implicates other people.

Unlike Jack, we as audience members at least know that Locke isn't just doing things willy-nilly; he has information via Smokey that tells him he must do things, for important reasons. You seem to think that, except for the specific instances we see Locke get a message from Smokey, Locke's actions are completely on his own initiative for his own reasons.

No, I don't think that. I don't agree with his unsceptical approach about it.

I see no evidence of that. I think there is good reason to believe that Locke gets all kinds of insights and information from Smokey that we are not privy to.

I've seen him have 3 havids, and that's it. I don't see him having dreams every night, nor visit his sweat lodge every day.

I actually believe you are right about that, but don't have quite the same take on it. I believe Locke was instructed that the hatch needed to be kept a secret for as long as possible. That if the 815s learned about it too early, something bad would result. Ultimately, the 815s learned about the hatch when they were supposed to, due to the scenario set up by Smokey.

...

I used to believe that keeping secrets was part of Locke's nature, that he tends to keep too many unnecessary secrets. Now, however, I tend to believe Locke mostly kept secrets because he was instructed to do so, by Smokey.

And that is based on what? The idea that Locke is all knowing and in constant contact with Smokey? I haven't seen proof of that. Locke's judgement, or what he thinks Helper/Smokey wants is not necessarily equal to me what Helper/Smokey actually wants.

Anything that takes place during Locke's "dark time" isn't gonna hold much water with me. Seemed to me like he was acting out of character, and in any event, he was simply not "on his game" during that time period. We all have our bad days.

Dark or light times, it is all in character for me. Remember the first season hints at Locke's trait having "black or white" thinking. And anyway the argument is beside the point. The lockdown happened, and Locke ended up pinned to the floor by the door, forced to not miss a glimpse of Kelvin's painting.

What forced? What did he need Charlie to do? I don't really even see why Charlie was there at all, except as a narrative device.

He had need of someone to stand guard, in order to talk with the island after he had lsot his voice. And there was no one better than Charlie.

Forced how? You think Locke resisted involving others? Seemed more to me like, "hey, anyone who wants to come, let's go!" Way more involvement than Jack ever initiated.

The disappearance of Eko forced him coincidentally to the same place

lol. Locke was channeling one of the writers, in regards to the presence of Nikki and Paulo. ;)

But he had never thought of Nikki's idea before, had he?

sgtdraino

03-04-07, 10:55 PM

That's not how he sounds to me.

Well, I think you're in the minority on that one. Set up a poll in the polls section, and see what most of us think about Jack's "leadership" abilities. :)

Because it was a different idea.

Well, I'll leave it to a Mod to weigh in on that one. As far as I know, double-posting unless you have specific permission to do so is frowned upon, however I cannot find the specific rule on double-posting.

Strawman argument. That's not what I said.

Sounded to me like you were saying something to the effect of, "if it worked for the cavemen, it should work for the 815s." I find that to be specious. One does not necessarily follow from the other.

You also referred to it as pseudo-social.

Actually, what I said was "pseudo-intellectual." In my experience, academic types use jargon, i.e. field-specific terms that the general populace would not ordinarily know, in order to make themselves appear more intelligent, as well as give themselves a feeling of superiority to those who don't know the jargon. But the only thing jargon really illustrates, is that the person has a knowledge of jargon... and perhaps lacks the communications skills necessary to speak in terms everyone can understand. It's one thing to use jargon when talking to colleagues of your profession, but to use it with the general populace is a bit like speaking French in a room full of people who don't know a word of French. What's the point?

But if I feel like using it, I guess I have the right to,

Sure. Just don't be surprised if most of us here don't feel like taking the effort to learn your jargon in order to communicate with you "on your level." We're here by-and-large to have fun and talk about Lost, not learn jargon. Net-speak is just internet jargon, and is specifically banned, for example.

We are discussing characters here, not ourselves.

I was simply noting, correctly it would appear, that you seem to assume The Island only communicated with Locke during the specific times that we the audience have seen it do so. To me, that's a stretch. There are plenty of instances where Locke seems to know things, especially about the other 815s, that he should have no conventional way of knowing. You appear to doubt other communications with The Island occured, because we the audience did not see them. In our continuing discussion of the characters, I observed Jack also has a tendency to doubt what he cannot see.

I've seen him have 3 havids, and that's it.

And that's what I'm talking about.

I don't see him having dreams every night,

Why not?

nor visit his sweat lodge every day.

I see the sweat lodge as probably a one-time or rarely-used thing. Perhaps the only time Locke has tried to initiate communication with The Island pro-actively.

And that is based on what?

That is mostly based on the fact that, with the exception of the blast door map Locke saw during his "dark time," to me he has seemed less-inclined to keep secrets since the hatch became public knowledge. He generally seems to volunteer information to anyone with the curiosity to ask. Want to know about the hatch? Locke will tell you. Want to shoot a gun? Locke will show you. What to join Locke on a hike? Feel free. He isn't comfortable with keeping Ben's presence down there a secret.

The idea that Locke is all knowing

I don't know anyone who thinks that.

and in constant contact with Smokey?

Certainly not constant contact, but regular contact yes. At least before he lost his faith.

I haven't seen proof of that.

Lessee, off the top of my head...

Locke saves Jack in "White Rabbit," when Jack is dangling over a cliff in the middle of nowhere, after having followed "Christian." Was it just coincidence Locke was there at the right time?

Locke knows where Charlie's guitar is. Not just a guitar, but specifically Charlie's guitar.

Locke offers Michael a pencil as a peace offering. How did he know Michael was an artist?

Locke seems to know everybody's real name. At one point he says that he got the manifest from Hurley, but that still doesn't explain how he knew that James Ford is Sawyer, and not just one of many dead or missing people.

Locke mixes up a paste as Boone watches. When Boone asks what it's for, Locke says, "it's for later."

Locke knows when it's about to rain.

Locke is instinctively drawn to the buried hatch door, even though there's no sign or trail leading to it.

Locke knew that Walt burned the raft.

Locke knew it was Claire's birthday.

Locke's judgement, or what he thinks Helper/Smokey wants is not necessarily equal to me what Helper/Smokey actually wants.

I totally agree. But where you see some sort of deficiency on the part of Locke's judgement, I see Smokey giving vague or misleading information on purpose. Smokey's motives might be ultimately positive, but the entity does not play fair with Locke.

Dark or light times, it is all in character for me.

You're entitled to your opinion. A poll on the subject might again prove interesting.

Remember the first season hints at Locke's trait having "black or white" thinking.

I think you're misinterpreting Claire's HAVID. The "black and white, light and dark" theme is a recurring one in Lost. The backgammon pieces, the stones they find at the caves, the Black Rock in "dark territory," and of course Claire's HAVID, in which she sees Locke with one white eye and one black eye, dealing tarot cards on a small table with a number of small white stones on it. I think this theme has more to do with good and evil, and knowledge of future events, than with thought processes. Hopefully someday tptb will give us a clearer idea of what Claire's HAVID really meant.

The lockdown happened, and Locke ended up pinned to the floor by the door, forced to not miss a glimpse of Kelvin's painting.

What's your point?

He had need of someone to stand guard, in order to talk with the island after he had lsot his voice. And there was no one better than Charlie.

I suppose, having some experience with writing, I have a tendency to look for and spot the "man behind the curtain." Yes, the excuse used story-wise was that (for some reason) Locke wanted Charlie to prevent anyone coming into the tent. Mostly I only saw this as a mechanism used by the writers to put the Locke and Charlie characters together for an episode. The "reason" seems a little thin to me.

The disappearance of Eko forced him coincidentally to the same place

So, are you saying you believe Locke wouldn't have gone to The Pearl, if he hadn't followed Eko there? No, it was made clear in the episode that Locke was intending to go to The Pearl all along. Locke says, "I think I know how to find Jack, Kate, and Sawyer," and proposes using the computer in The Pearl to contact the Others. When Locke realizes Eko is headed for The Pearl, he simply accelerates their mission departure time, so they can catch up to him.

But he had never thought of Nikki's idea before, had he?

I dunno, had he? ;) Locke is sneakier than he gives himself credit for. Since you teach situational leadership, I'm sure you know that letting your staff take credit for ideas, even though they might be things you were planning to do anyway, can help build up their confidence, bolster their feeling that they're making a valuable contribution to the group.

Brian

03-04-07, 11:07 PM

Well, I'll leave it to a Mod to weigh in on that one. As far as I know, double-posting unless you have specific permission to do so is frowned upon, however I cannot find the specific rule on double-posting.

sgtdraino is correct. It's more of an unwritten rule than anything else. As long as you don't make a huge habit of it, no harm no foul IMHO. ;)

If you're posting on the same topic and no one has responded to you yet, then we'd rather you just edit your original post with an "ETA" (Edited To Add) tag than double-posting.

Sorry to interrupt, I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion. You both do an excellent job of presenting your arguments and they're enjoyable to read. :Cheers:

Homer Noodleman

03-04-07, 11:20 PM

I frequently double post if I am addressing two different ideas or two posters.

Frankly, I find Fisking to the level of answering individual sentences out of contex a far screwier technique.

Brian

03-04-07, 11:23 PM

I frequently double post if I am addressing two different ideas or two posters.

I swear I had that in my response somewhere. Stupid editing. Sorry about that.

Frankly, I find Fisking to the level of answering individual sentences out of contex a far screwier technique.

I do, however, use this technique sometimes. It works and eliminates ambiguity as to what it is you are responding to. ;) :)

Homer Noodleman

03-05-07, 12:06 AM

Used properly it is a fine technique. However, paragraphs generally lay out the main idea, not individual sentences. I mean, does every last sentence, phrase, word and statement of a post need to be challenged?

In keeping with the Dharma hippie van, different strokes for different folks I guess.

sgtdraino

03-05-07, 03:23 AM

MOD FIGHT!!! ;)

You both do an excellent job of presenting your arguments and they're enjoyable to read. :Cheers:

Thanks, Brian. It's just nice to see some activity down here in the Locke forum! And he hasn't even done very much lately! :)

Frankly, I find Fisking

I was actually unfamiliar with this term, and felt compelled to look it up. Dang you Homer for tricking me into learning jargon! Dang you to heck!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking

to the level of answering individual sentences out of contex a far screwier technique.

Individual sentences, sure. Out of context? The whole point of the practice is to keep things as in context as humanly possible.

I do, however, use this technique sometimes. It works and eliminates ambiguity as to what it is you are responding to. ;) :)

Yes.

I mean, does every last sentence, phrase, word and statement of a post need to be challenged?

Only if they're wrong. ;) Hey, at least I don't attack people's spelling! Now that would not be in contex. ;)

In keeping with the Dharma hippie van, different strokes for different folks I guess.

Why Homer, that is uncharacteristically zen of you. Why are you acting out-of-character?

I blame the writers!!!

sweetsunray

03-05-07, 04:15 AM

Haven't more time to answer everything, although I'll respond to the All "proof" of Locke being some clairvoyant and getting info from Smokey/Island off show. In general I only see you mention things that can be explained by being an observant man. And that I will give Locke... he's very observant, which I think is a good trait. For none of the examples do you need to be clairvoyant or have info from the island.
sgtdraino:
Locke saves Jack in "White Rabbit," when Jack is dangling over a cliff in the middle of nowhere, after having followed "Christian." Was it just coincidence Locke was there at the right time?
Locke's been told Jack's gone after the water has been stolen by Boone, he volunteers to get some fresh water, and says he knows where to look. We also know he's good at trails, hunting, and been training himself for a bushwalk. Jack isn't far from the water and the caves when he fell of the cliff. So both Jack's trail as Locke's search for water coincide.

sgtdraino:Locke knows where Charlie's guitar is. Not just a guitar, but specifically Charlie's guitar.
The guitar was in plain sight. All you needed to do was have the inclination to inspect all of your surroundings, including looking up, what a lot of normal people don't do. But hunters do. And if I were to see a guitar hanging from a cliff, and knew there was a rock start on the plane, I'd bet a lot of money the guitar is from that said rock star. Locke didn't find any other guitar either, and from the Losties nobody else plays it... so that guitar couldn't have been anybody elses.

sgtdraino:Locke offers Michael a pencil as a peace offering. How did he know Michael was an artist?

Was already a while after Hurley made the census, and after Michael had already declared publically to be a construction worker. Michael liked to tell people what he was, wanted to be respected, valued. So, I'm quite sure Michael would have told Hurley he was also an artist besides a construction worker.

sgtdraino:Locke seems to know everybody's real name. At one point he says that he got the manifest from Hurley, but that still doesn't explain how he knew that James Ford is Sawyer, and not just one of many dead or missing people.

Why doesn't it? Until the census Locke refers to Sawyer as Sawyer. And Hurley asked everyone questions. Sawyer would have explained to Hurley he was really James Ford in that case. Most people won't change what they say, but Locke does. And I will say that it shows a degree of respect Locke naturally has to his fellow people. (Although of course it contrasts again with him making Sayid suspect Sawyer for clubbing Sayid down when he was the clubber)
sgtdraino:Locke mixes up a paste as Boone watches. When Boone asks what it's for, Locke says, "it's for later."
Boone has already been telling Locke on the way over to the hatch, before Locke starts makinghis paste, that people are asking questions, and how they can't keep things secret for much longer.

sgtdraino:Locke knows when it's about to rain.
It doesn't rain without clouds. In the tropics the rainshower comes at a regular timing, most often in the afternoon. They're a short downpour, of about half an hour up to an hour. For example in the Yucatan it's 4pm, in Chiapas it's between 2-4pm. When I'm outdoors with a group, I watch the sky often to check on the rain. It's pretty easy to foretell the coming of rain in the tropics about 10-5 ins before it comes. Locke being a hunter and outdoors type would have picked up on this within a few days. Nothing special about it.

sgtdraino:Locke is instinctively drawn to the buried hatch door, even though there's no sign or trail leading to it.
There is a trail, up till a quarter of a mile away. And perhaps the trail Locke started to follow would have been Kevin and Desmond's trail from the day they crashed. After that it was his gut, but there still could have been less obvious signs left by those two that Locke might not have registered consciously, but unconsciously. Trained hunters would have learned to rely on that too.

sgtdraino:Locke knew that Walt burned the raft.
He could have figured that out, like Jack figured out Sun poisoned Michael by mistake. Or is Jack clairvoyant too now? He knew Walt and dad didn't work all that well, and that Walt didn't like moving.

sgtdraino:Locke knew it was Claire's birthday.
After census epi

There's also several examples where Locke doesn't know things, such as out of hte top of my head: Kate being a fugitive, Ethan being an Other, that Ben was not called Henry Gale and he wanted Sayid to beat the information out of him instead of communicating with Smokey about it. THere's many more of that, including little stuff.

ETA: as for my attitude about relying only on what I see... I read tarot, and I've "channeled" both in meditation as well as in normal state of mine, and I use tarot to focus the "channeling" as well as don't make people freak out when I tell them someting about themselves that they hardly gave a conscious sign about. I've even foretold things. Don't actually believe personally that I'm getting messages from something outside of myself, but a) that serendipity works for tarot reading... it's not the cards, its the meaningfulness. b) i never "channel" on things I cannot check with facts (don't see the point), and in hindsight (including the foretelling) I can always think of clues people unconsciously give beforehand what's the matter (I never want to know the questions people have directly). It's not always something you would think of consciously. Consciously thinking about it, might reveal nothing. But the unconscious picks up many signals, things people wish to hide or not talk about. With enough observational experience, your unconscious mind can make a good estimation (just plain statistics of the brain imo) of what probably is going on. Most of the time, you hit the target. You just need to dare to shut off the conscious part of the brain, and just start talking. In any case I've always been sceptical about what I "get". I never assume it's the truth until I get verification, certainly not when it involves my own life or myself (desires can do sneaky stuff). So, yeah, I know Locke's way, and still perform it, but when it comes down to it, I'm a woman of science and keep it to hard facts. I just recognize that my brain can store a lot of more facts than I'm conscious of.

boonian androphile

03-05-07, 05:18 AM

That was fun sweetsunray. so under the analysis you provide, is Locke's generally cogent mind distracted when he doesnt know things? Kate, Ethan, and Ben have historically been rather good at hiding things. Maybe Locke couldnt sniff out their secrets. Even now his skills have especially shrunk after burrowing in the hatch and being exposed to the sunlight again for only a short time. :melting:

And Sgt Draino, my friend. I expected to find your name under the provided definition of Fisking! One would think that you had originated the practice!:)

sgtdraino

03-05-07, 07:23 AM

Haven't more time to answer everything, although I'll respond to the All "proof" of Locke being some clairvoyant

I don't know if he's clairvoyant. In fact, I don't think he is. I just think he's gotten info from Smokey more times than we have seen.

And that I will give Locke... he's very observant, which I think is a good trait.

That is true. One of the deleted scenes on the S1 dvds really highlighted this, though such scenes are not to be taken as canon.

Locke's been told Jack's gone after the water has been stolen by Boone, he volunteers to get some fresh water, and says he knows where to look. We also know he's good at trails, hunting, and been training himself for a bushwalk. Jack isn't far from the water and the caves when he fell of the cliff. So both Jack's trail as Locke's search for water coincide.

What makes you think the cliffs are close to the caves? When Locke finds Jack, it is daylight. Jack doesn't find the caves until dark. Locke also wouldn't have caught up to Jack like that, unless Jack was wandering around in circles (he wasn't, he was following "Christian"), or Locke simply "knew" where Jack would be. And right after he pulls him up, he gives Jack his speech about how he saw Smokey, and everything on the island happens for a reason. To me, those words imply more than just being able to walk again. Those words imply communication from Smokey.

I'd bet a lot of money the guitar is from that said rock star. Locke didn't find any other guitar either, and from the Losties nobody else plays it... so that guitar couldn't have been anybody elses.

You might have bet a lot of money the guitar was probably Charlie's, but there were, what, 100 people on the plane? Among them dead a missing people nobody knows anything about? Locke sounded absolutely certain that the guitar was Charlie's. Not only that, but when Charlie starts talking about wanting his guitar, they are at the one place on the whole island where that guitar is located?

Was already a while after Hurley made the census,

Hurley was only asking three questions on the census: Name, place of residence, and (sometimes) reason for travel. He was working with the plane manifest showing the names, birthdates, gender, passport #, and country of citizenship of all the passengers. He shouldn't have any information other than this. Even though you'd think it would be the obvious thing to do, Hurley didn't ask about jobs or skill sets.

and after Michael had already declared publically to be a construction worker. Michael liked to tell people what he was, wanted to be respected, valued.

True, but as his ex says, "you never talk about your art anymore." This life as an artist was something he had put behind him, a secret thing about himself, something private and personal. His own son didn't know he was an artist until Michael gave him the sketches, so it's doubtful he would have mentioned it to anyone else.

Why doesn't it? Until the census Locke refers to Sawyer as Sawyer. And Hurley asked everyone questions. Sawyer would have explained to Hurley he was really James Ford in that case.

Perhaps.

Boone has already been telling Locke on the way over to the hatch, before Locke starts making his paste, that people are asking questions, and how they can't keep things secret for much longer.

It's a theory.

When I'm outdoors with a group, I watch the sky often to check on the rain. It's pretty easy to foretell the coming of rain in the tropics about 10-5 ins before it comes. Locke being a hunter and outdoors type would have picked up on this within a few days. Nothing special about it.

Could be.

There is a trail, up till a quarter of a mile away.

Incorrect. Boone mentions that it has been 15 minutes since they've seen any sign, and that is during daylight. Much later, after it's dark, they are still tracking with no trail.

After that it was his gut, but there still could have been less obvious signs left by those two that Locke might not have registered consciously, but unconsciously.

So Locke is subconsiously tracking a trail in heavy rain and in the dark? I don't think so. And what does he say?

LOCKE: Don't you feel it?

He could have figured that out,

So your explanation, when there is no explanation, is that he just figured it out somehow?

He knew Walt and dad didn't work all that well, and that Walt didn't like moving.

And yet when Locke asks Walt about burning the raft, Locke seems genuinely curious about why Walt did it. Locke doesn't know why, he just somehow knows that Walt did. That lack of knowledge of a motive does not imply that he "figured it out." He just knew.

There's also several examples where Locke doesn't know things,

Oh, absolutely. Locke does not know everything, and Smokey is selective about what information is passed on.

I'm a woman of science and keep it to hard facts. I just recognize that my brain can store a lot of more facts than I'm conscious of.

Interesting. A woman of science who reads tarot. That's an interesting dichotomy. So what do you make of Locke using tarot cards in Claire's HAVID?

The bottom line, however, is that we know Locke gets information from Smokey via HAVIDS. We've seen it happen on the show at least three times, and there are plenty of other examples where Locke seems to have knowledge he shouldn't. Some you can come up with alternate explanations for, some not-so-much. The point is, is there any reason, any reason at all, to believe that Locke has not received any HAVIDS from Smokey other than the ones we have seen? I've come up with reasons why he probably has... can you come up with any reasons why he probably hasn't?

sweetsunray

03-05-07, 08:38 AM

Locke also wouldn't have caught up to Jack like that, unless Jack was wandering around in circles (he wasn't, he was following "Christian"), or Locke simply "knew" where Jack would be.

a) Locke is a tracker
b) Though Jack may not have been going in circles, he was wandering nonetheless.
c) Locke himself mentioned how easy it is to catch up to Jack when they're after Ethan

And right after he pulls him up, he gives Jack his speech about how he saw Smokey, and everything on the island happens for a reason. To me, those words imply more than just being able to walk again. Those words imply communication from Smokey.

Not necessarily. They imply that he knows this is a strange wonderful island that has him walking again.

You might have bet a lot of money the guitar was probably Charlie's, but there were, what, 100 people on the plane? Among them dead a missing people nobody knows anything about? Locke sounded absolutely certain that the guitar was Charlie's. Not only that, but when Charlie starts talking about wanting his guitar, they are at the one place on the whole island where that guitar is located?

Locke figured out before Charlie started talking about his guitar what Charlie probably would have wanted imo. Locke was steering Charlie to that confession. What you seem to see as too much coincidence, is nothing special in my eyes. Just observance and putting two and two together.

Hurley was only asking three questions on the census: Name, place of residence, and (sometimes) reason for travel. He was working with the plane manifest showing the names, birthdates, gender, passport #, and country of citizenship of all the passengers. He shouldn't have any information other than this. Even though you'd think it would be the obvious thing to do, Hurley didn't ask about jobs or skill sets.

Yeah, but some people are talkative and would give more info than asked.

True, but as his ex says, "you never talk about your art anymore." This life as an artist was something he had put behind him, a secret thing about himself, something private and personal. His own son didn't know he was an artist until Michael gave him the sketches, so it's doubtful he would have mentioned it to anyone else.

Even a construction worker needs a pencil to draw his constructions

Incorrect. Boone mentions that it has been 15 minutes since they've seen any sign, and that is during daylight. Much later, after it's dark, they are still tracking with no trail.
So Locke is subconsiously tracking a trail in heavy rain and in the dark? I don't think so. And what does he say?

LOCKE: Don't you feel it?

Yup I see it's feasable for a hunter to pursue on his gut (based on unconscious signals ofused ground) in order to get clsoe to the hatch. Locke mentions it's quarter of a mile when it is close to getting dark, and advizes Boone to return.

So your explanation, when there is no explanation, is that he just figured it out somehow?

Yup, based on my own experience that's very feasable. You don't know exactly what Locke has seen that day. If you can assume he met Smokey, then it's even less strange to assume he saw something with Walt that made him think it was Walt. He was the one who knew Walt the closest.

And yet when Locke asks Walt about burning the raft, Locke seems genuinely curious about why Walt did it. Locke doesn't know why, he just somehow knows that Walt did. That lack of knowledge of a motive does not imply that he "figured it out." He just knew.

I'm not claiming he figured it out, consciously. But it made a lot of sense that it was Walt.

Interesting. A woman of science who reads tarot. That's an interesting dichotomy. Yup, I'm a spiritual atheist

So what do you make of Locke using tarot cards in Claire's HAVID? Not sure yet.

The bottom line, however, is that we know Locke gets information from Smokey via HAVIDS. We've seen it happen on the show at least three times, and there are plenty of other examples where Locke seems to have knowledge he shouldn't. Some you can come up with alternate explanations for, some not-so-much. The point is, is there any reason, any reason at all, to believe that Locke has not received any HAVIDS from Smokey other than the ones we have seen? I've come up with reasons why he probably has... can you come up with any reasons why he probably hasn't?

See my theory on Smokey for that. http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31139I think none of Locke's havids are Smokey. And for the rest I have occam's razor. Locke is an intuitive gifted guy and a sharp observer. It's his advantage.

sgtdraino

03-05-07, 06:40 PM

a) Locke is a tracker

Tracking is slow work. The person being followed goes as fast as they want to. The tracker must go slow, especially in jungle, looking for sign. Unless the target is going REALLY slow, or the tracker somehow knows where the target is headed and can cut them off, the tracker is not going to catch up. He'll eventually make it to where the target is going, but he ain't gonna catch up. And Jack wasn't going slow, he's in good physical shape, and he was running after his dad.

b) Though Jack may not have been going in circles, he was wandering nonetheless.

Doesn't matter. If Locke was tracking him, he's following the same wavey line that Jack makes.

c) Locke himself mentioned how easy it is to catch up to Jack when they're after Ethan

That's when Jack literally was walking in circles. Locke caught up to him because Locke was tracking Ethan, not Jack.

What you seem to see as too much coincidence, is nothing special in my eyes. Just observance and putting two and two together.

Well, I'm not really trying to convince you, as there is no convincing someone who has already made up their mind. This is a simple debate for the entertainment of the audience. :)

Even a construction worker needs a pencil to draw his constructions

Perhaps, but that episode was focused on Michael as an artist, and his sketches for Walt.

Yup I see it's feasable for a hunter to pursue on his gut (based on unconscious signals ofused ground) in order to get clsoe to the hatch.

I doubt you will find any real tracker who agrees with this. Besides, that hatch has been sealed for years. There wouldn't be any Desmond back-trail that leads to it, Desmond never used it. If Locke really was that good at subconsciously following Desmond's trail in dark rain, he would have found the "back door."

Locke mentions it's quarter of a mile when it is close to getting dark, and advizes Boone to return.

Checked the scenes, no he doesn't. There might be another episode where somebody says the hatch is a quarter mile from camp, but that's direct line. We're talking about passage of time here, and Locke still followed a nonexistent trail from day until night in heavy rain, based only on a feeling that he was surprised Boone could not also feel.

Yup, based on my own experience that's very feasable.

Possible doesn't mean probable.

You don't know exactly what Locke has seen that day. If you can assume he met Smokey,

Not literally met, just that he had some sort of HAVID that gave him the information.

then it's even less strange

Less strange certainly, but also less probable.

to assume he saw something with Walt that made him think it was Walt. He was the one who knew Walt the closest.

And yet again, while Locke is absolutely certain that Walt burned the raft, what he doesn't know is why. Figuring it out detective-style would lead him through motive in order to come to the answer. Give me a scenario of how Locke would figure out that Walt burned the raft, without figuring out why he did it.

I'm not claiming he figured it out, consciously. But it made a lot of sense that it was Walt.

So, this is another thing that Locke figured out subconsiously? :)

Yup, I'm a spiritual atheist

That's actually not surprising at all. It requires a lot of faith to believe that God does not exist. To assume that the unexplainable can be explained by something other than God. My girlfriend is a spiritual atheist.

I (http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31139 I) think none of Locke's havids are Smokey.

Doesn't matter. He still has HAVIDs, and they still impart real information to him that he could not have known by conventional means.

And for the rest I have occam's razor.

For the peanut gallery, occam's razor is the principle that the simplest solution is probably the correct one, and that people should make as few assumptions as possible when trying to figure out the answer to a question. If we had never seen Locke have any HAVIDs, occam's razor would work to sweetsunray's favor. But now that we know he gets information through these visions, elaborate explanations for how he might have "figured it out" in some other way actually fail the test of Occam's Razor.

Locke is an intuitive gifted guy and a sharp observer. It's his advantage.

It's one of his advantages, certainly. But you didn't answer the question: What reasons do you have to assume that Locke has not had any other HAVIDs other than the ones we the audience have seen?

It is actually kind of ironic that me, the big Locke cheerleader, would be arguing that so much of Locke's insight is derived through Smokey. He'd be way more impressive if he was figuring things out Hannibal Lector/Sherlock Holmes style all the time! :)

sweetsunray

03-05-07, 07:45 PM

Tracking is slow work. The person being followed goes as fast as they want to. The tracker must go slow, especially in jungle, looking for sign. Unless the target is going REALLY slow, or the tracker somehow knows where the target is headed and can cut them off, the tracker is not going to catch up. He'll eventually make it to where the target is going, but he ain't gonna catch up. And Jack wasn't going slow, he's in good physical shape, and he was running after his dad.

But Jack didn't walk or evenrun constantly. Often he had to stop and look around him, before his dad appeared again.

That's when Jack literally was walking in circles. Locke caught up to him because Locke was tracking Ethan, not Jack.

But he said he would catch up BEFORE he found Jack walking in circles. And a track to follow is a track to follow.

Well, I'm not really trying to convince you, as there is no convincing someone who has already made up their mind. This is a simple debate for the entertainment of the audience. :)

Don't know where that came from. I didn't even wrote a thing abot convincing. You think my mind is made up? It's not. I'm just holding to a default sceptic position to your explanation (since there's a few vague circumstancial pinpointers of yours that may not so easily be explained): that's what a scientific mind means to me, I either "don't know" (when I don't), or I come with reasonable explanations a la occam's razor and the less pseudo, the better, until I've been shown explicitly otherwise. And then I'll naturally go with the evidence. But your evidence is slim, and it was easy enough to make it doubtful as evidence. A case of reasonable doubt.

Perhaps, but that episode was focused on Michael as an artist, and his sketches for Walt.

So? What did Michael use the pencil for? To draw a pipe-shower system... as construction worker, not as artist.

I doubt you will find any real tracker who agrees with this. Besides, that hatch has been sealed for years. There wouldn't be any Desmond back-trail that leads to it, Desmond never used it. If Locke really was that good at subconsciously following Desmond's trail in dark rain, he would have found the "back door."

Got a point there. But the area was used by Kelvin. And an area with an underground structure and used regularly, may still "feel" different because of environmental clues, that the unconscious picks up on, but you can't register consciously. It's like the thousand of Piramids in the Mayan jungle. Locke didn't find the hatch, btw, that was Boone. There's also one main reason for me that the find of the hatch was not orchestrated by an unfeatured Locke havid... because the Helper came to investigate what Boone and Locke were up to there at the hatch, when he tied Boone up an drugged him. Helper created a situation where Boone would confess what they were doing, to It as Shannon while chased by Smokey, and incidentally warning Boone thatSmokey would be after Shannon. Why would It as Shannon keep asking what he and Locke are about, if it had sent Locke there in a Havid in the first place. Makes no sense at all. And also, if Locke was led there by a Havid, why to the sealed hatch, and not the door.

Checked the scenes, no he doesn't. There might be another episode where somebody says the hatch is a quarter mile from camp, but that's direct line. We're talking about passage of time here, and Locke still followed a nonexistent trail from day until night in heavy rain, based only on a feeling that he was surprised Boone could not also feel.

He does...a few lines after Boone mentioned 15 mins.

Locke: The trail's been cold for a quarter mile, dangerous terrain ahead. If you start now, you'll make it back before dark.

Possible doesn't mean probable.

As I said, all I need to do is give alternative explanations that are possible without Havids and then I made a case of reasonable doubt.

So, this is another thing that Locke figured out subconsiously? :)

yup, and through deduction. Or he might have actually seen the boy do a suspect thing.

That's actually not surprising at all. It requires a lot of faith to believe that God does not exist. To assume that the unexplainable can be explained by something other than God. My girlfriend is a spiritual atheist.

No faith involved, no belief. I don't "believe there is no god", but I "don't believe" there is a god. Seems perhaps the same, but the difference is just reasonable doubt, and by default I go for the "not" version (like not-guilty). It's like twisting, "not guilty" into "innocennt." But anyday I'm given substantial, physical evidence otherwise, I'll change my mind.

Doesn't matter. He still has HAVIDs, and they still impart real information to him that he could not have known by conventional means.

It does matter, because it's about the nature of the beastie that he gets his havids from.

For the peanut gallery, occam's razor is the principle that the simplest solution is probably the correct one, and that people should make as few assumptions as possible when trying to figure out the answer to a question. If we had never seen Locke have any HAVIDs, occam's razor would work to sweetsunray's favor. But now that we know he gets information through these visions, elaborate explanations for how he might have "figured it out" in some other way actually fail the test of Occam's Razor.

Actually, the "simple" means to invoke as little "entities" to explain something. We have been shown havids of Locke and Boone that only showed an interest in the hatch (even finding Eko was hatch related: clean up your mess). And it needing to actively find out from Boone what they were doing up there at all, and several times sent Locke to "?" Since we've been shown that we can accept the invocation of another entity. But to then assume it for all the rest is still not warranted, because in those cases explaining it with less entities involved still works.

What reasons do you have to assume that Locke has not had any other HAVIDs other than the ones we the audience have seen?

Default sceptic position until shown or admitted otherwise later on in the show.

sgtdraino

03-06-07, 03:48 AM

But Jack didn't walk or evenrun constantly. Often he had to stop and look around him, before his dad appeared again.

I still don't think he was moving slow enough for Locke to actually track and catch up to him. Locke claimed he wasn't even looking for Jack, that he was looking for water.

But he said he would catch up BEFORE he found Jack walking in circles. And a track to follow is a track to follow.

I guess he knew Jack would flounder around. Maybe The Island told him. :)

Don't know where that came from. I didn't even wrote a thing abot convincing. You think my mind is made up? It's not.

Then would you concede it is possible Locke is having HAVIDs we are not privy to? If you don't think that's possible, then your mind is made up.

I'm just holding to a default sceptic position to your explanation

A default position would be "I don't know." To assume other HAVIDs are not occuring is to go beyond that, to take a stand based on faith. You may think the evidence that other HAVIDs are occuring does not amount to much, but the evidence that other HAVIDs are not occuring amounts to nothing at all.

(since there's a few vague circumstancial pinpointers of yours that may not so easily be explained):

Yes.

that's what a scientific mind means to me, I either "don't know" (when I don't), or I come with reasonable explanations a la occam's razor and the less pseudo, the better,

What do you mean by "the less pseudo, the better?" In the literary world of Lost, Smokey/The Island is every bit as real a possibility as deductive reasoning is.

until I've been shown explicitly otherwise. And then I'll naturally go with the evidence.

But what evidence? I've still seen zero evidence to indicate Locke has only received the HAVIDs we've seen. This should, at the very least, leave you at the position of "I don't know."

But your evidence is slim, and it was easy enough to make it doubtful as evidence. A case of reasonable doubt.

That is a court system standard, designed to protect suspects from being accidentally convicted. A standard of evidence weighted in the suspect's favor. A good system for criminal justice, but not for science.

So? What did Michael use the pencil for? To draw a pipe-shower system... as construction worker, not as artist.

However Michael chose to use the pencil, that doesn't alter the reason it was given.

Got a point there. But the area was used by Kelvin.

Was it? We never saw it used. We have no way of knowing how long that ladder's been gone. When Kelvin got Desmond, he took him in through the back door, after which three years passed. The hatch was completely covered up and overgrown since it was disused, and you're hypothesizing that Locke was subconsciously following an old trail that somehow survived all that?

And an area with an underground structure and used regularly, may still "feel" different because of environmental clues, that the unconscious picks up on, but you can't register consciously.

Sorry, but I simply don't buy into that at all.

Locke didn't find the hatch, btw, that was Boone.

Locke led them there. At the very least, they found it together. Locke tossed Boone the flashlight, which fell. Clunk, the hatch was found.

There's also one main reason for me that the find of the hatch was not orchestrated by an unfeatured Locke havid... because the Helper came to investigate what Boone and Locke were up to there at the hatch, when he tied Boone up an drugged him. Helper created a situation where Boone would confess what they were doing, to It as Shannon while chased by Smokey, and incidentally warning Boone thatSmokey would be after Shannon. Why would It as Shannon keep asking what he and Locke are about, if it had sent Locke there in a Havid in the first place.

lol. Well now, there's a take I've never heard before on that HAVID! :) The Shannon HAVID kept asking Boone what was happening because that's what the real Shannon was doing, and would have done. The HAVID behaved in the way that Boone expected Shannon to behave. And Smokey didn't create the scenario, Locke did. Was Locke in league with Smokey, to help Smokey find out what Locke was doing? That makes no sense. Particularly since we've seen that Smokey can scan the thoughts of people. Heck, Smokey knew Ana-lucia was killed in the hatch mere moments after it happened!

Makes no sense at all.

lol. Yeah. :)

And also, if Locke was led there by a Havid, why to the sealed hatch, and not the door.

It's all a big game of mousetrap, which involves delicate timing in order to work properly. Locke was led to the hatch, because that's where Smokey wanted him to be. I don't know why, because I don't know the full extent of Smokey's thought processes. But based on the evidence available, I am convinced that Locke was led to the hatch by Smokey. By Occam's Razor, it is surely more likely that he was led there, versus finding it via some kind of subconscious trail overgrown and rained on for 3+ years.

He does...a few lines after Boone mentioned 15 mins.

You're right. Okay, so they've been following a non-existent trail for a quarter mile, which took them 15 minutes to cover, at which point it's still broad daylight. They then continue to follow said non-trail in heavy rain, until sometime during full dark. If they did a quarter mile in 15 minutes, then they must have covered several miles just on Locke's "feeling" by the time they found the hatch. One unique point on the whole island.

As I said, all I need to do is give alternative explanations that are possible without Havids and then I made a case of reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is courtroom thinking, not scientific thinking. Possible explanations are not evidence, they're just hypotheses looking for some evidence to support them, of which there is none.

yup, and through deduction.

Subconscious deduction with no knowledge of motive? Come on.

Or he might have actually seen the boy do a suspect thing.

That's one hypothesis. Any evidence to support it?

No faith involved, no belief. I don't "believe there is no god", but I "don't believe" there is a god. Seems perhaps the same, but the difference is just reasonable doubt,

The difference is atheism versus agnosticism.

and by default I go for the "not" version (like not-guilty).

That is the classic way pure Occam's Razor works (one of its flaws, actually), but you do realize that's not scientific thinking at all, right? True science starts with complete impartiality, until evidence points one way or the other. Your method is a bit like saying, "The world is flat, unless you can prove that it is round" (or vice-versa). In the real world, there's no such thing as a "not" version. To say "Locke is not getting other HAVIDs" is the same thing as saying "Locke is getting his knowledge through deduction." I could just as easily create a "not" version for my argument: "Locke is not getting his knowledge through deduction." It's meaningless semantics.

It does matter, because it's about the nature of the beastie that he gets his havids from.

Not at all. Doesn't matter where they come from, the supposition is very simple:

1. He gets HAVIDs that impart information he could not know by conventional means.
2. He's gotten them more than one time from just what we've seen.
3. There are many additional instances where he has had knowledge that it would be unlikely for him to have conventionally, but that we have seen no HAVIDs impart.
4. There is no evidence to suggest the HAVIDs we have seen are the only ones he's had.
5. Therefore, it is most likely that he has had additional HAVIDs we are not privy to.

That's Occam's Razor for you. The simplest explanation supported by the balance of the evidence.

Actually, the "simple" means to invoke as little "entities" to explain something.

For the rest of yous guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Okay then, list the different entities required to explain how Locke arrived at the cliff at the right time to save Jack. First from your viewpoint, then from mine.

But to then assume it for all the rest is still not warranted, because in those cases explaining it with less entities involved still works.

I'm not sure I agree with your understanding of what an "entity" means, but let's see what your list looks like. Lists in three days! :)

Default sceptic position until shown or admitted otherwise later on in the show.

It's certainly an option, but it's not scientific. I suppose you would take Jack's position to not push the button, believing that his stance that it doesn't do anything is the "not" version?

Heck, how often do we see them go to the bathroom on the show? Your stance is like saying, "they only go to the bathroom when we see them go to the bathroom on the show, unless someone admits to going to the bathroom off camera." Of course, then I guess you might still argue that no one else goes to the bathroom off camera, until they admit they do too.

Your stance seems to be, "I'm right, unless you can prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, I don't have to prove anything, I just need to come up with hypotheses." Puh-lease.

sweetsunray

03-06-07, 05:01 AM

Then would you concede it is possible Locke is having HAVIDs we are not privy to? If you don't think that's possible, then your mind is made up. It is possible, but doubtful with the evidence for the moment.

A default position would be "I don't know." To assume other HAVIDs are not occuring is to go beyond that, to take a stand based on faith. You may think the evidence that other HAVIDs are occuring does not amount to much, but the evidence that other HAVIDs are not occuring amounts to nothing at all.
...
But what evidence? I've still seen zero evidence to indicate Locke has only received the HAVIDs we've seen. This should, at the very least, leave you at the position of "I don't know."
...
That is a court system standard, designed to protect suspects from being accidentally convicted. A standard of evidence weighted in the suspect's favor. A good system for criminal justice, but not for science.

Nope. Default sceptic position in science is the negative, when the positive if unproven. And you seem to totally misundersand my posts on this. You claimed he had off-screen havids. So, that makes the onus on you to give solid proof of that. I did not try to prove that Locke is not having non-feautered havids. All I need to do is make your evidence doubtful, by providing alternative explanations. Nor can I be expected to prove a negative, because that's a logical impossibility (that is why the negative is the default position). For example, you may claim they have a pink unicorn walking on the island, but unless there is any more evidence for that than circumstantial, the logical response is that it isn't there.

Was it? We never saw it used. We have no way of knowing how long that ladder's been gone. When Kelvin got Desmond, he took him in through the back door, after which three years passed. The hatch was completely covered up and overgrown since it was disused, and you're hypothesizing that Locke was subconsciously following an old trail that somehow survived all that?

I don't mean to say that the hatch was used, but that it lies in a used area. a) the station itself a used area, through construction b) the hatch is not miles off from the door they used. c) Kelvin went outside often, daily it appears by Desmond's complaints and plea to be the one to be allowed outside foronce. Kelvin didn't stay inside for 3 years, Desmond did. Nobody had walked the area outside only for the amount of time that the Losties crashed.

lol. Well now, there's a take I've never heard before on that HAVID! :)

So? Shows you haven't read my theory on it yet. Nobody has yet complained about my interpretation of that havid.

Was Locke in league with Smokey, to help Smokey find out what Locke was doing? That makes no sense. Exactly my point.

It's all a big game of mousetrap, which involves delicate timing in order to work properly. Locke was led to the hatch, because that's where Smokey wanted him to be. I don't know why, because I don't know the full extent of Smokey's thought processes. But based on the evidence available, I am convinced that Locke was led to the hatch by Smokey. By Occam's Razor, it is surely more likely that he was led there, versus finding it via some kind of subconscious trail overgrown and rained on for 3+ years.

a) See my response on Kelvin's mobility... facts you seem to forget cnveniently about
b) you're making a possible claim that seems to contradict with a constant being led to the Pearl instead of the Swan, and even Smokey as havid saying to Shannon not to use the button, and Walt as Walt saying to Locke not to open the thing

Reasonable doubt is courtroom thinking, not scientific thinking. Possible explanations are not evidence, they're just hypotheses looking for some evidence to support them, of which there is none.

That is the classic way pure Occam's Razor works (one of its flaws, actually), but you do realize that's not scientific thinking at all, right?

I know that Occam's Razor is not regarded an evidence

True science starts with complete impartiality, until evidence points one way or the other.Your method is a bit like saying, "The world is flat, unless you can prove that it is round" (or vice-versa). In the real world, there's no such thing as a "not" version.

LOL, I think you need to take it up with a many great scientists then.

1. He gets HAVIDs that impart information he could not know by conventional means.
2. He's gotten them more than one time from just what we've seen.
3. There are many additional instances where he has had knowledge that it would be unlikely for him to have conventionally, but that we have seen no HAVIDs impart.
4. There is no evidence to suggest the HAVIDs we have seen are the only ones he's had.
5. Therefore, it is most likely that he has had additional HAVIDs we are not privy to.

point 3 is arguable on many accounts, and point 5 is a leap of faith.

Okay then, list the different entities required to explain how Locke arrived at the cliff at the right time to save Jack. First from your viewpoint, then from mine.
I'm not sure I agree with your understanding of what an "entity" means, but let's see what your list looks like. Lists in three days! :)

I'll do that.

Heck, how often do we see them go to the bathroom on the show? Your stance is like saying, "they only go to the bathroom when we see them go to the bathroom on the show, unless someone admits to going to the bathroom off camera." Of course, then I guess you might still argue that no one else goes to the bathroom off camera, until they admit they do too.

That's something normal we know that needs to bone several times a day.

Your stance seems to be, "I'm right, unless you can prove me wrong. The burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, I don't have to prove anything, I just need to come up with hypotheses." Puh-lease.

Nope, my stance is the burden of proof is on you to prove you're right. You made the claim.

sgtdraino

03-06-07, 07:12 AM

It is possible, but doubtful with the evidence for the moment.

Again, what evidence? There is evidence for, no evidence against.

Nope. Default sceptic position in science is the negative, when the positive if unproven.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one too. I don't see any such thing as a negative and a positive in this case, just two or more different possibilities. Negative and positive is just relative to your point of view.

And you seem to totally misundersand my posts on this. You claimed he had off-screen havids. So, that makes the onus on you to give solid proof of that.

lol. I could just as easily postulate that you are the one claiming that Locke arrives at all of his knowledge via subconscious deductive reasoning, and say the onus is on you to give solid proof of that. In fact, I dare say most people generally believe that Locke receives regular insight from The Island, and that yours is the minority view.

I did not try to prove that Locke is not having non-feautered havids.

That is correct, you have essentially proven nothing.

All I need to do is make your evidence doubtful, by providing alternative explanations.

Nonsense. We have two opposing positions, neither positive nor negative:

Me: Locke receives knowledge from The Island off-camera.
You: Locke gets all of his knowledge through subconscious deductive reasoning, aside from the HAVIDs we have specifically seen.

I have provided supporting evidence for my supposition, you have not provided any for yours.

Nor can I be expected to prove a negative, because that's a logical impossibility

That is a common fallacy. "The sky is not red." I'll bet I can prove that negative very easily. It can be harder to prove a negative, but not impossible. But again, we are not talking about a negative/positive case.

(that is why the negative is the default position). For example, you may claim they have a pink unicorn walking on the island, but unless there is any more evidence for that than circumstantial, the logical response is that it isn't there.

True, but to parallel that to Smokey, I would say that Locke saw a pink unicorn at least three times now, so it's a fair bet it's still walking around over there. :)

The point being, we already have established the basic idea does exist: Locke does receive information via HAVIDs, just as we can establish he does occasionally go to the bathroom. To assume he doesn't do either of these things off camera, is not scientific. We shouldn't automatically assume he does, but in this case, the "negative" should not be the default position. That's just putting your head in the sand.

I don't mean to say that the hatch was used, but that it lies in a used area.

Okay, here you are claiming the hatch lies in a used area. Evidence please?

a) the station itself a used area, through construction b) the hatch is not miles off from the door they used. c) Kelvin went outside often, daily it appears by Desmond's complaints and plea to be the one to be allowed outside foronce. Kelvin didn't stay inside for 3 years, Desmond did. Nobody had walked the area outside only for the amount of time that the Losties crashed.

These are just more hypotheses of how it's possible the hatch lies in a used area, but again with no actual evidence supporting your claim. Sure didn't look like a used area to me! I never see anyone going through that area to get to the back door. Have you?

Nobody has yet complained about my interpretation of that havid.

Shrug.

Exactly my point.

Wait... your point is that Smokey wanted to know what Locke was doing, so it asked Locke to tie up Boone so that it could trick Boone into telling it what Locke was doing? Are you serious? This after it's been established that Smokey can scan your friggin thoughts?

a) See my response on Kelvin's mobility... facts you seem to forget cnveniently about

Um... the evidence established in the show suggests Kelvin was off repairing Desmond's boat. By your own standard, since nothing was presented that Kelvin was tromping around on the hatch area, we should take the default position that he wasn't!

b) you're making a possible claim that seems to contradict with a constant being led to the Pearl instead of the Swan,

He was led to both. Have you any evidence that he was not?

and even Smokey as havid saying to Shannon not to use the button,

Common misconception. tptb have stated that Walt was in fact saying "Push the button. Don't push the button, bad." Not to mention the rather obvious in-your-face Smokey telling Eko that pushing the button was very important.

and Walt as Walt saying to Locke not to open the thing

I suspect Walt got some glimmer of the deaths that would later happen in there, people that would be murdered by his own father. But while Walt is special, he's still just a kid. He does not see the big picture.

LOL, I think you need to take it up with a many great scientists then.

Heh. Oh I am well aware that a great many scientists are not impartial. But the objective of science should be to eliminate bias. The best scientists do that, at least as much as humanly possible.

Oh wait, you said "many great." Scoff! :)

point 3 is arguable on many accounts, and point 5 is a leap of faith.

You see me go to the library. Then you see me visit the library again. Then you see me visit the library a third time. Does it make sense to claim that I have never visited the library other than the times you have specifically seen me? Gimme a break.

needs to bone several times a day.

Amen to that, sister! ;)

Nope, my stance is the burden of proof is on you to prove you're right. You made the claim.

We both made claims. Prove yours.

sweetsunray

03-06-07, 09:20 AM

I wanted to respond on the subconscious process. I had to leave for work earlier on, so could not respond fully, and since I'm at work right now (with pupils doing their work) I don't have more time than a point I wanted to add aboutu subconscuous processes which seem to sound so ridiculous to you.

Let me ask you afew rhetorical questions? What do you do, when you stand on the road, and a car is heading your way at great speed. Do you consciously calculate its speed, its acceleration, its impact power? No, and still your mind will be able to make a fast assessment of the situation, even though you are not able to word it. Aside from assessing the situation in a fraction of less than a second, you will also jump aside. How does your body do that? Are you consciously doing integral math, conscious calculus in order to make sure that you jump far enough and in such a way that you land without hurting yourself? Again, you don't do that consciously. If you were asked to actually put the math down in a paper (that is go through the conscious process), you'd need at least several minutes in order to come with the several mathematical solutions. And yet you can do it all in split seconds subconsciously. Now, with that in mind, tell me again that the subconsious can't induct or deduct?

Secondly. I've pointed out that Locke may have seen suspicious behaviour with Walt before the fire. And since you write (like I do) and are familiar with presenting a narration, you will, I am sure, agree that it would be silly to betray Walt's suspicious behaviour to us viewers, because then we the viewers would already know who was the culprit, and the suspense would be gone. This epi was like a detective epi, just like the poisoning of Michael. Again, Jack would be in your opinion be in contact in Smokey as well before this, so then was it Smokey that told him that it was Sun who poisoned Michael? And if its in your eyes valid to assume Locke knew this because of SMokey, then its as valid an alternative that he may have seen Walt do something suspicious.

Thirdly, perhaps Locke was not so sure. As you know, a good manner of interrogation is to ask "Why did you..." in such a sure voice, that the response will betray the suspect that he in fact did it.

ETA: I would also like to add that the argument of the majority view that you use so regularly for me is a fallacious argument, and bears no weight with me at all. You can continue to use it, but it means zilch to me, and I will continue to ignore it any further, and is the reason why so far I've ignored your poll prepositions... Such arguments are better known as "argumentum ad populum."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.

Popularity does not make a statement more correct, or less. The only time an appeal-to-the-public argument is a valid one is when we would be discussing popularity of soemthing itself, rather than the something.

We are discussing the something here, not the popularity of it.

Me: Locke receives knowledge from The Island off-camera.
You: Locke gets all of his knowledge through subconscious deductive reasoning, aside from the HAVIDs we have specifically seen.

Another fallacity... strawman again. I have not made an absolute claim that is how it is. What I have done is show there are large gaps in your claim by providing many alternatives to explain Locke's actions, of which the quoted one above is only one of them. I have also provided several examples where Locke didn't know things, and you try to explain that by Smokey again. Most of your logic has been circular (another flaw).
And it goes about like this:
a) It's Smokey who provided Locke with all the information
b) If Locke didn't know something, then it was because Smokey didn't inform him
c) And if some havids can be interpreted to contradict a, then that's silly since Smokey provides Locke with all the information. (and that one is circular)
You ignore or ridicule possible alternatives for no other reason than the leap of faith that Locke's knowledge must automatically come from Smokey.
I have not ridiculed your hypotheses. And I am well able to accept it as a possibility for a few of the instances you provided, if so confirmed. But it isn't, and as long as it is not the only possible explanation, I do not necessarily believe it.

He was led to both. Have you any evidence that he was not?

Again, wrong and dishonest question. I cannot prove a negative. It is for you to provide the evidence that he was led consciously by Smokey to the hatch. You don't have any, because the evidence would be said havid, which hasn't aired either because there was no such havid, or because there was one and it wasn't aired. You have a speculation. Good. It's a possible explanation. But I would not assert it to be the only possibility with the information we have about it so far.

You see me go to the library. Then you see me visit the library again. Then you see me visit the library a third time. Does it make sense to claim that I have never visited the library other than the times you have specifically seen me? Gimme a break.

The difference would be in the specialty of the occurrence. A havid is something rare, and it's not even clear whether all havids are even smokey sourced. Not everybody has one, and those who had do not often receive another one. In the airing Locke had 2,5: (1) About the beechcraft (1,5) as Eko climbing up the cliff AFTER Eko forced him to the beechcraft (2,5) When Locke actively searched for a communication. Eko had a few more than 1 as well. And yet it is still experienced as a rarity by both Locke and Eko, especially a rarity since Locke thinks he's in need of pro-actively making the communication, instead of beign sure that it'll visit him as it has done every few days as presented by your proposal.
Comparing a havid and the occurrence of it as a visit to the toilet or the library is comparing apples to oranges.

sgtdraino

03-06-07, 05:59 PM

you'd need at least several minutes in order to come with the several mathematical solutions. And yet you can do it all in split seconds subconsciously. Now, with that in mind, tell me again that the subconsious can't induct or deduct?

Yes. You are confusing subconscious behavior with learned/memory behavior. It's like learning mathematical flash cards. After you've got them down in your memory, your subconscious is not calculating that 4 x 12 =48, you simply remember that it is. There is no reasoning involved. That's why children aren't allowed in the street. They haven't learned to avoid traffic yet. Same goes with learning to walk. You aren't doing millions of calculations per second, you're simply performing learned behavior without thinking. Repetetive actions are not subconscious reasoning. You can't solve a criminal case, or track someone through the jungle without thinking about it, because these are not repetitive actions. You must constantly look for and examine new and unique details. Find me one real tracker who can track subconsciously, at night, in heavy rain, and be surprised that the guy with him can't also do it.

Secondly. I've pointed out that Locke may have seen suspicious behaviour with Walt before the fire.

Thirdly, perhaps Locke was not so sure. As you know, a good manner of interrogation is to ask "Why did you..." in such a sure voice, that the response will betray the suspect that he in fact did it.

These are just more hypotheses. Is there any evidence to support any of these? I have provided evidence to support mine.

ETA: I would also like to add that the argument of the majority view that you use so regularly for me is a fallacious argument, and bears no weight with me at all.

I don't really care what weight it bears with you, since I'm not trying to convince you. If 100 scientists believe the world is round, and 1 scientist believes the world is flat, you think that's meaningless? Scientifically speaking that 1 guy might be right... but he probably isn't.

The only time an appeal-to-the-public argument is a valid one is when we would be discussing popularity of soemthing itself, rather than the something.

I view all of us that watch the show, as being like scientists trying to discover things about Lost. I'm interested in what my colleagues think about things, because they're generally pretty smart people.

Another fallacity... strawman again. I have not made an absolute claim that is how it is.

I beg to differ. You have made it clear repeatedly that you believe Locke has only received the 3 HAVIDs we've seen, and has received all his other information via his subconscious and/or deductive reasoning.

You ignore or ridicule possible alternatives

If I was ridiculing things, the Mods would step in. This, so far, has been a healthy and clean debate.

for no other reason than the leap of faith that Locke's knowledge must automatically come from Smokey.

I don't think that all of Locke's knowledge automatically comes from Smokey. Some of it is indeed derived through deductive reasoning, and some of it is derived from Smokey. Your claim, and it is a claim, that all of Locke's information is derived via deduction has nothing to back it up.

And I am well able to accept it as a possibility for a few of the instances you provided, if so confirmed.

That's really the only thing I am arguing, though I would say it is probable, not just possible. You seem to be asserting your deduction hypothesis is more probable, even though there is no evidence to back it up.

And as for deductive reasoning, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Again, wrong and dishonest question. I cannot prove a negative..

Then prove a positive. Prove, in all the instances I have given so far, that Locke used his subconsious and/or deductive reasoning to get the information he has. Don't just give hypotheses/possibilities, give evidence to support those hypotheses.

The difference would be in the specialty of the occurrence. A havid is something rare,.

That's a claim. Evidence?

and it's not even clear whether all havids are even smokey sourced..

Is there any evidence for another source? A pink unicorn perhaps? Once again, via your standards, Smokey is the only established source at this time.

Not everybody has one,.

But a lot of 'em do. Lessee, off the top of my head... Jack, Locke, Claire, Charlie, Hurley, Shannon, Kate, Sawyer... and that's just the ones we know about.

and those who had do not often receive another one..

Claim. Evidence?

Eko had a few more than 1 as well..

Okay, that right there is more evidence for off-sceen HAVIDs. Eko starts building a church. Charlie asks him why, and Eko replies, "I was told to." We didn't see him having a HAVID telling him to do this, but he apparently had one.

And yet it is still experienced as a rarity by both Locke and Eko,.

Claim. Evidence?

especially a rarity since Locke thinks he's in need of pro-actively making the communication,.

I will agree that, once Locke started to lose his faith, it appears that he stopped getting the HAVIDs regularly anymore. That's why he acted pro-actively.

instead of beign sure that it'll visit him as it has done every few days as presented by your proposal. .

And yet he never took such pro-active action in the past. Your own evidence suggests that he didn't need to back then.

Comparing a havid and the occurrence of it as a visit to the toilet or the library is comparing apples to oranges.

Of course they are not the same things, but for our purposes, they are both things that have been established to be non-unique occurences, as opposed to your pink unicorns, which haven't been established at all.

sweetsunray

03-06-07, 09:58 PM

It's not just repetitive automated learning... I might advize you the book "blink". It starts with an example on a perfect Kouros statue (an uniquely perserved Kouros statue), which a gallery eventually buys, after having the material, the stone examined, which the examinator claimed to have been over two thousand years old. But many of the most renown experts in Classic Greek Art feel it in their "gut". There's something wrong. They think it's a forgery. They even hold a symposium about it. None of the experts can explain it with conscious arguments. They just have this feeling its false. The gallery hangs on to the age of the stone report. But first it's shown that the aged-stone effect can be the result of a forgery method. And then they find out that one of the documents of its origin story (a sale) is a forgery. It now has a plaque that says "over 2000 years old, or forgery."
Same goes for investigators, who observe body language. They can't prove it, they can't argument it, but they feel it in their "gut", just know that person they interrogated was lying. Why is that? Because for a flash sec, too fast to register consciously, but nevertheless subconsciously, that person made one of the facial movements that would expose hir as a liar if you'd slow the tape and image. Of course you couldn't convict someone based on that, but that investigator will be hard-pressed on digging deeper for confirmation, for evidence, what (s)he already figured out by their gut... by observational expertise.
And I don't think there's denying that Locke is an expert tracker. How can a hidden, and yet used area betray itself in little ways, too little to be conscious of, and yet significant enough? Noise of animals - the absence of them, or the increase of some bird species - slight elevations of the ground, an overgrowth that's more defined rather than random, electric radiation, once cleared foliage, but starting to be overgrown with fresh shoots, reverberation of the earth with a hollow layer underneath, etc ...
The station was a used area in several ways:
a) there's a structure ... to build a structure you need to alter the environment. These alterations may last consciously visible (even in the wild) for years, heck centuries, if you know what to look for. They may not be visible to a layman, but to an expert they will be. And even if the expertis not actively searching for those clues, he or she can be expected to feel it in their gut.
b) the area was used by Kelvin up till the day the Losties crashed. Desmond stayed inside for three years, andonly went out once, but Kelvin went out regularly to patch up Desmond's boat, and whatever else he did. How large is the station? Hundred yards? Less? So, how far away is the hatch of the door Kelvin used?
This is what we factually know of Locke... he discovered a second trail, and started to follow it. About an hour, or half an hour before darkness sets in, the trail turned cold. There were no consciously visible clues. Guess what Locke says he's following: his "gut" (hmm that sounds so familiar to what those Classic Greek Art experts said). Maybe he was lying. Maybe he had a havid that told him to go look for a hatch. Or maybe, he just actually did follow his expert gut, just like he said, on a feeling based on subconsciously registered cues and clues. It starts to rain, it gets dark, and though he hasn't seen any conscious visible signs, his gut just keeps on nagging because of the cues, enough to not make him go back. Boone wants to go back. Locke lets him, because he knows he doesn't have a single factual argument to make somebody else stay. He throws the torchlight. Thunk! There's the confirmation.
Remember that Locke doesn't worry at all of finding his way back in the dark. He doesn't even think he needs a torchlight.
And that Locke found the hatch instead of the door of the station points to a serendipituous find, rather than a consciously guided one. If the first, in all your claiming that it's an unscreaned havid that guided him there, you have failed to answer how come then that the havid led him to the hatch rather than the door. If a havid is able to predict Boone's death and the falling beechcraft in detail, able to order to "bring the ax," then why would it lead Locke to a hatch that can't be opened from the outside, with stairs that are gone, instead of the door? Just compare the find of the hatch, with the so much guided find of the Pearl. Why then didn't he have havids about the Black Rock and dynamite (Claire seemed to have those)?
I'm not claiming someting preposterous, I'm offering a possibility that is fairly common with experts to not let go just like that, even though they don't know what they're looking for or even what they're absorbing of environmental data, and that they just go that little stretch basedontheir gut, exactly as Locke himself claimed he did. Perhaps Locke lied about his gut, perhaps he didn't. So, you see, how far I am removed of making an actual claim in that regard.

You keep claimoring about what evidence I have, while you provide none. I don't have evidence. Nor do you. You say you do, but you haven't. You've pointed out peculiar, serendipituous instances where Locke was at the right place at the right time, where he followed his gut and his gut was apparently right, where he possibly knew someone did something. Perhaps it ain't so serendipituous, perhaps it's just that. And for myself, I need more than your claim that it's havid guided and can't be anything else, in order to ditch the alternatives.

As for you question of me needing to prove there is more than one entity from which the havids come from. I think you need to prove that they all come from the same entity. And just having the existence of one entity who clearly was the source of havids with certain persons, is not enough for me. I thought so at first, after Eko's death epi, but once I started to analyse every havid, every meeting with Smokey, I detected two groups of havids: those who are about confession, and those who wave confessions away and are more helping oriented. It's absolutely possible that Smokey is the source for both, it's also possible that he's only the source for the confession and repenting oriented ones, and something else provides the helping oriented havids. For the moment I'm only certain of a few definite Smokey ones, and Locke's havids aren't amongst them, nor Boone's, nor is Jack's, nor the first one Eko has, nor Claire's... (the ones I summed up here, are those that contained at some point (either from the start, or later on) an effort to help the person or have that person communicate in a non-confessional manner about their misdeeds in the past)... So, since I have no definite confirmation that they are of the same Smokey that killed Eko, I take the default sceptical position that for me, now they're not Smokey, until shown otherwise. I expect that Lost will give clues in the future to decide on that matter. I can revize my opinion then. If you want to convince me that they're all Smokey, then you need to provide an all-encompassing theory on Smokey on the canon material of Lost.

It's really ironic to hear that the one who started to make claims, never actually tackled any of the weaknesses I pointed out, or even explained his claims more in depth, but just only asserts he provided evidence and keeps askign me to provide envidence for mine. You keep saying you provided evidence. WHAT EVIDENCE? Yup, I'm merely providing alternative hypotheses. So what? Locke possible having seen Walt do something suspicious off-screen is as valid to propose as your assertion that it was an off-screen havid.

Your claim, and it is a claim, that all of Locke's information is derived via deduction has nothing to back it up.

Strawman! I did not claim such a thing.

SSR: The difference would be in the specialty of the occurrence. A havid is something rare,.

That's a claim. Evidence?

Canon material.

SSR:and those who had do not often receive another one..

Claim. Evidence?

Canon material.

Eko starts building a church. Charlie asks him why, and Eko replies, "I was told to." We didn't see him having a HAVID telling him to do this, but he apparently had one.

Eko was told by a Nigerian village woman that he owed Eko a church, after he slaughtered several gangsters in Yemi's.

And yet he never took such pro-active action in the past. Your own evidence suggests that he didn't need to back then.

You misunderstood me: Here is what I was saying... IF Locke had had regular off-screen havids, then Locke would not have felt compelled to pro-actively search for a havid, but would just have relaxed and waited out a havid by the Helper. Since he did not wait, but was anxious to pro-actively search for a havid, indicates that he's not having regular havids off-screen.

Of course they are not the same things, but for our purposes, they are both things that have been established to be non-unique occurences, as opposed to your pink unicorns, which haven't been established at all.

The apples and oranges is not in the non-uniqueness, but in the degree of normalness. If I've seen a person go to jail once, and over a decade later see that same person go to jail again, I'm not going to assume he went to jail in between that time, many times. Then all I know for a fact is that this person ended up in jail twice. It's possible that (s)he recidive more than once, but without hard facts I'm not going to assume that. Now, that would be a more aproximate anolagy at this moment, based on the canon material of Lost.

Homer Noodleman

03-08-07, 03:28 AM

Well, I'll be interested to see the excuses dreamed up for Locke playing video games for an episode and accidently blowing up another hatch. Must have been more of his mystical powers and wisdom I guess. :p

sgtdraino

03-08-07, 06:39 AM

It's not just repetitive automated learning... I might advize you the book "blink".

I'll take that under advisement, but I don't plan on reading a book just for this thread. :) Your example is interesting, but like you, I'd be inclined to argue apples and oranges. Have you any examples of trackers who have tracked things without consciously thinking about it?

Same goes for investigators, who observe body language. They can't prove it, they can't argument it, but they feel it in their "gut", just know that person they interrogated was lying.

Actually, as such a person, we are trained on what cues to look for, and trained to be able to articulate what it was that gave the person away. Necessary for court testimony. Sure people get gut feelings, but in my experience, such feelings are just as often wrong as they are right.

And I don't think there's denying that Locke is an expert tracker.

He certainly seems capable of doing it (or at least he used to seem capable). Does he really have much prior experience, though? Did a little hunting with his father, a little more with the hippies. In the past, we've always viewed Locke as someone with a lot of "book smarts," but limited in his actual experiences.

How can a hidden, and yet used area betray itself in little ways, too little to be conscious of, and yet significant enough?

It's an interesting theory, but I for one am not convinced this is possible. Subconsciously tracking a trail that is invisible, in heavy rain, in the dark, claiming it's a "feeling" that you're surprised your little buddy can't also feel? Maaaaaaybe possible, but seems highly unlikely to me. Once again, what is most probable?

How large is the station? Hundred yards? Less? So, how far away is the hatch of the door Kelvin used?

In all the times we've seen people enter and leave the "back door" we have never seen them pass through the area the "hatch" is in. As long as Boone and Locke worked unearthing that hatch, they never got wind of the back door's location. If Locke is really as good a tracker as you say, he would have subconsciously made a beeline for that back door, and not the hatch. That's where all the trails would be going.

This is what we factually know of Locke... he discovered a second trail, and started to follow it. About an hour, or half an hour before darkness sets in, the trail turned cold.

After they'd followed no trail for 15 minutes, it was still broad daylight. The show does not occur in real time, we have no way of knowing how much time passed between that scene, and the scene where it is completely dark and they find the hatch. I'd say it takes at least 2 hours minimum (and that's really conservative) to go from broad daylight to total dark, that means something like 2+ miles in heavy rain, with less and less light, and no trail.

Maybe he was lying. Maybe he had a havid that told him to go look for a hatch.

We can make up possibilities all day long, the key is which ones are supported by evidence. Of course we can't prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. We're simply dealing in probabilites. So far, based on the evidence I've seen, Locke was most probably led to the hatch by a feeling given to him by "The Island." Is there any evidence to give weight an alternate possibility?

Or maybe, he just actually did follow his expert gut, just like he said, on a feeling based on subconsciously registered cues and clues.

Heh. He didn't say all that! :)

And that Locke found the hatch instead of the door of the station points to a serendipituous find, rather than a consciously guided one.

Based on what? Just because the hatch seems less important or less useful to you than the "back door" doesn't mean that he wasn't guided there on purpose.

If the first, in all your claiming that it's an unscreaned havid that guided him there, you have failed to answer how come then that the havid led him to the hatch rather than the door.

Because it didn't want him there. I can only speculate as to why. Why didn't his tracking skills lead him to the back door?

If a havid is able to predict Boone's death and the falling beechcraft in detail, able to order to "bring the ax," then why would it lead Locke to a hatch that can't be opened from the outside, with stairs that are gone, instead of the door?

Because it wanted him to bang on the hatch, but it didn't want him inside. At least not right away. I think of it as being similar to Desmond's flashes of future events. To your average 815er, Desmond might appear to be a crazy person running around and tying up golf clubs to things. But that's because he has insight the rest of us don't. That dude sees the future. :) He saw Charlie killed by lightning. But because of what he did, that never happened. We'll probably never know why Smokey sent Locke to the hatch and not the back door, because Smokey did it to avert something. Because that thing was averted, we'll never know what it might have been.

Just compare the find of the hatch, with the so much guided find of the Pearl.

For everything, there is a season. And a time for every purpose under heaven. It's about timing. The right things need to happen at the right times.

Why then didn't he have havids about the Black Rock and dynamite (Claire seemed to have those)?

I don't remember this Claire HAVID, can you refresh my memory?

I'm not claiming someting preposterous, I'm offering a possibility that is fairly common with experts to not let go just like that,

You can offer up all the possibities in the world. The big question is, which ones are supported by the observable evidence? So far, your possibilites seem mostly backed only by hypotheticals.

You keep claimoring about what evidence I have, while you provide none.

1. We know Locke receives HAVIDs that impart real information to him.
2. We know that HAVIDs sometimes occur off screen.
3. We know that Locke sometimes knows things he should have no conventional way of knowing.
4. Before Locke ever has the very first HAVID we ever see him have, he tells Boone, "The Island will tell us what to do."

I think you need to prove that they all come from the same entity. And just having the existence of one entity who clearly was the source of havids with certain persons, is not enough for me.

Isn't this contrary to your default "not" position? We have been shown a source of HAVIDs. Until we see evidence that another source exists, aren't we supposed to default to a position that there is no other source? No pink unicorn?

I detected two groups of havids: those who are about confession, and those who wave confessions away and are more helping oriented.

Do two different kinds of HAVIDs somehow imply two different sources? I'm not ruling out the possibility, I'm just not seeing how different types is evidence of different sources.

So, since I have no definite confirmation that they are of the same Smokey that killed Eko, I take the default sceptical position that for me, now they're not Smokey, until shown otherwise.

Heh. I think your "default skeptical" position can be twisted to whatever position you want it to be.

If you want to convince me that they're all Smokey, then you need to provide an all-encompassing theory on Smokey on the canon material of Lost.

Smokey obviously causes HAVIDs. Thus far, to my mind, there has been no evidence that anything else causes them. Thus, while not certain, Smokey is currently the most likely candidate for all HAVIDs.

You keep saying you provided evidence. WHAT EVIDENCE?

See above. And a bunch of prior posts. :)

Yup, I'm merely providing alternative hypotheses.

Meaningless without evidence to back them up. It's like your pink unicorn hypothesis. We'd never take it seriously, because there is no evidence supporting it.

So what? Locke possible having seen Walt do something suspicious off-screen is as valid to propose as your assertion that it was an off-screen havid.

I'll admit that the HAVID angle is an easy out to explain the unexplainable. But in the Walt/fire case, it seems to me the observable evidence discounts the deduction/witness theory. We see in the episode that Locke didn't see Walt set the fire, and we see that Locke wants to know why Walt did, indicating he didn't know motive. Locke's behavior is that of someone who was simply tipped off on the culprit, and doesn't know the details of why.

Strawman! I did not claim such a thing.

So, you're saying that you now don't believe that, aside from the HAVIDs we've seen, Locke get's all his info via subconsious/deduction?

Canon material.

What canon material? You can reasonably claim that we the audience only occasionally see the HAVIDs, but what evidence do you have indicating how often they occur?

Canon material.

lol. That's like me saying, for my evidence, "it's on the show." Details, madam!

Eko was told by a Nigerian village woman that he owed Eko a church, after he slaughtered several gangsters in Yemi's.

That is not the reason he started building the church, but I'm glad you mentioned it, because it directed me to the first example I've noticed of proof that off-screen HAVIDs occur. Observe from "?":

ANA-HAVID: What are you building?
MR. EKO: I am building a church.
ANA-HAVID: Now why the hell would you wanna do that?
MR. EKO: Because I was told to.
ANA-HAVID: Told to by who?
MR. EKO: I was just told. I think it was in a dream.

There you have it. A dream told Eko to build a church. A dream (HAllucinations/VIsions/Dreams) that occured off-camera.

You misunderstood me: Here is what I was saying... IF Locke had had regular off-screen havids, then Locke would not have felt compelled to pro-actively search for a havid, but would just have relaxed and waited out a havid by the Helper. Since he did not wait, but was anxious to pro-actively search for a havid, indicates that he's not having regular havids off-screen.

You are not factoring in time. The only thing that indicates, is that he's not having them now. Or hasn't had them recently. Not since he lost his faith I'd say, which is pretty obvious. If he kept having them on a regular basis, then he probably wouldn't have lost his faith in the first place!

The apples and oranges is not in the non-uniqueness, but in the degree of normalness.

But what is normal on The Island? I'll bet you will see people have HAVIDs a lot more often that you see them go to the library. :)

Well, I'll be interested to see the excuses dreamed up for Locke playing video games for an episode and accidently blowing up another hatch. Must have been more of his mystical powers and wisdom I guess. :p

Nah, the man was clearly not on his game today. Bleh. Clearly not receiving insight from Smokey or doing subconsious deductive reasoning either! :) The only thing I'll say in his semi-defense, is that it was dumb for his two team mates not to mention the whole building was wired with explosives, just as it was dumb that he didn't mention the computer thing to them. As we've seen in the past, none of the 815s friggin communicates information with each other!!! :mad:

sweetsunray

03-08-07, 07:22 AM

I'd say it takes at least 2 hours minimum (and that's really conservative) to go from broad daylight to total dark,

Are you serious? Noticed the doomsday dark during rain in the pilot epi? They're close to the equator. At the equator itself it goes dark from broad daylight to night dark in about 10 mins. They hardly have any dusk. It's about less than an hour say at the height of Guatemala, Honduras. And that with a clear sky.

I don't remember this Claire HAVID, can you refresh my memory?

Her diary told about Claire having dreams about the Black Rock

So, you're saying that you now don't believe that, aside from the HAVIDs we've seen, Locke get's all his info via subconsious/deduction?

It's not either ALL or NOTHING. I think that based on Canon material alone, Locke knows certain things via havids, sometimes he's just following his own "gut", and other times he has the information consciously in a rational way.

See above. And a bunch of prior posts.

The evidence I've read of you was a few examples where according to you Locke knew stuff he could not have known, which I thoroughly disagree with. And that he had 2,5 havids on screen.
But you have been unable to prove that Locke could only have known through havids. Aside from that you assume that Locke acutally knows in some cases, where it might have been a combination of his gut and chance (called serendipity). You want me to ignore Locke's own statements (following his gut, read the census,...), and prove that Locke is able to deduct, track, read and remember, observe people and make up his mind all in favour of for unscreened havids. Yup my evidence is circumstantial, but then I'm talking about abilities that are quite human and normal. Unless Locke is mentally handicapped there is reason to beleive in theory that he has a mind. And I won't at this point, with the canon material at hand won't see unscreened havids as the only possible explanation. Then you need to provide some good evidence.

We see in the episode that Locke didn't see Walt set the fire,

How do we know that?

BTW I've also searched for a couple of days on the "official" Tbtb explanation of what Walt said, and you referred to. I found no such thing so far. I would appreciate it if you could give me a link.

sgtdraino

03-08-07, 04:28 PM

Are you serious? Noticed the doomsday dark during rain in the pilot epi?

You mean when the sky clouded up, and it rained for a while? And then got light again when it stopped raining? Heh. Yeah, I remember that. It also only got dim, not dark. That wasn't night time, that was just a cloudy day.

Her diary told about Claire having dreams about the Black Rock

Ah, you're right! Of course, you realize this is also additional proof that off-screen HAVIDs do occur, right?

It's not either ALL or NOTHING. I think that based on Canon material alone, Locke knows certain things via havids, sometimes he's just following his own "gut", and other times he has the information consciously in a rational way.

Correct. And apparently, sometimes he's just being a dumbass! :) It seemed to me that your position was that Locke has not had any HAVIDs other than the ones we the audience have seen. My position is that people have HAVIDs on and off-camera, and the possibility that this is where certain knowledge comes from is just as legitimate as any other possibility. More legitimate, when no other explanation is supported.

But you have been unable to prove that Locke could only have known through havids.

Well, just to stick with the example we've been beating to death, I maintain that it is impossible to subconsciously track a non-existent trail in heavy rain and at night. Find me a tracker who can do that, and I will concede the point. HAVID influence is the only explanation that fits. Locke tells Boone that "The Island will tell us what to do" before we ever see him have a HAVID, implying that The Island has told him what to do in the past as well.

You want me to ignore Locke's own statements (following his gut,

Gut doesn't imply subconscious deduction. Especially when Locke follows this comment up by saying it's a feeling, and that he's surprised Boone doesn't have the same feeling. Locke was drawn to that spot.

Yup my evidence is circumstantial, but then I'm talking about abilities that are quite human and normal.

Prove that a human can track a 3 year old trail at night, in heavy rain.

How do we know that?

I believe there is a brief reaction shot of Locke, when the fire starts up.

I found no such thing so far. I would appreciate it if you could give me a link.

Anybody? Mods?

sweetsunray

03-08-07, 05:25 PM

You mean when the sky clouded up, and it rained for a while? And then got light again when it stopped raining? Heh. Yeah, I remember that. It also only got dim, not dark. That wasn't night time, that was just a cloudy day.

But that was middle of the day, not dusk...Dark would set in even faster, when it starts to rain at dusk.

Ah, you're right! Of course, you realize this is also additional proof that off-screen HAVIDs do occur, right?

Hmmhmmm. I have not said your hypotheses is impossible. And I have since long acknowledged it as one of the possble explanations for several occasions. But again, it stil is circumstantial evidence whether Locke has them regularly. And for me more "natural" explanations cannot be ruled out.

Correct. And apparently, sometimes he's just being a dumbass! :) It seemed to me that your position was that Locke has not had any HAVIDs other than the ones we the audience have seen. My position is that people have HAVIDs on and off-camera, and the possibility that this is where certain knowledge comes from is just as legitimate as any other possibility. More legitimate, when no other explanation is supported.

And what do you call supported? When Locke makes a statement (such as following his gut, census reading) to explain something you wave it away. When there is circumstantial evidence that others can figure out who poisoned Michael without knowing the motive for sure, then the same thing cannot explain it for Walt, and yet I must accept that because Claire had off-screen havid dreams (well not really off-screen... it's canon fact) that Locke had off-screen havids for circumstances that could as easily be explained with serendipity and reliance on expertise, intuive observation and focused observation. Why? Because it's a sci-fi series, and then any talent must be heavenly sent and directed? The reason I like to watch Lost is because it has some sci-fi, and yet the more we learn the more it seems to be rationally explainable. The bigger the picture gets, the less ghost mystery, although I expect some of it will always remain.
My point is not that your hypotheses is necessarily invalid, but that for me at the moment natural explanations cannot be ruled out yet either.

Well, just to stick with the example we've been beating to death, I maintain that it is impossible to subconsciously track a non-existent trail in heavy rain and at night. Find me a tracker who can do that, and I will concede the point. HAVID influence is the only explanation that fits. Locke tells Boone that "The Island will tell us what to do" before we ever see him have a HAVID, implying that The Island has told him what to do in the past as well.

That might easily be interpreted metaphorically, to mean rely on your gut (which he also stated). I don't know any tracker personally, except Mayan ones who I cannot communicate with until many months for the moment. I simply extrapolate on how other experts (and indeed trained in observation), including myself, can know stuff of which they cannot articulate exactly why they have such a strong feeling, until verificated and in hindsight suddenly realize the cues it was based on. Even in the dark the environment can still give clues: sounds, vibration, elevation (you can feel that by walking).... and let us not forget the huge magnetism anomaly. As for your argument to play down Locke's skill... he can still kill a boar by himself, and had a good pace when he was still after Ethan alone with Jack. Let's just have it with agreeing to disagree, until further notice. If we learn canon-way that Locke had in fact havids off screen for Jack, Walt, finding the hatch, etc then I will accept that. But until then, nope.

Gut doesn't imply subconscious deduction. Especially when Locke follows this comment up by saying it's a feeling, and that he's surprised Boone doesn't have the same feeling. Locke was drawn to that spot.

Electricity, huge magnetism?... Also, some people are more aware (and that is not necessarily conscious) to their own sensations than another. Also apart from several known intelligences, it's speculated that some people have an above average nature environment intelligence. I suspect Locke is one of them.

Prove that a human can track a 3 year old trail at night, in heavy rain.

Kelvin and Desmond used that trail the last time a couple of weeks before that, and in the last 3 years Kelvin tramped about up and down every day. That's a FACT that you constantly forget or ignore. Kelvin didn't die 3 years ago. He died on the day the plane crashed. And he had to make regular trips to salvage the sailboat.

I believe there is a brief reaction shot of Locke, when the fire starts up.

I'll review it.

sgtdraino

03-08-07, 10:20 PM

But that was middle of the day, not dusk...Dark would set in even faster, when it starts to rain at dusk.

To a point. Doesn't really make the sun go down any faster, though. That last scene wasn't just cloudy, that was full darkness.

And what do you call supported? When Locke makes a statement (such as following his gut,

You seem to think the "gut" remark indicates subconcious. To me, that could just as easily indicate influence from Smokey. Moreso Smokey, when Locke is surprised Boone doesn't feel it too. When I get a gut feeling, I'm generally not surprised that people around me don't feel the same thing.

yet I must accept that because Claire had off-screen havid dreams (well not really off-screen... it's canon fact) that Locke had off-screen havids for circumstances that could as easily be explained

I would at least expect you to accept that it's just as possible he had off-screen HAVIDs, as it would be that he got the information via conventional means.

Why? Because it's a sci-fi series, and then any talent must be heavenly sent and directed?

It doesn't. Heck, you think I like the notion that maybe Locke's "wisdom" is just stuff that's been handed to him by Smokey? I like it when Locke kicks ass on his own. It's just that, from what I've observed, he gets a fair bit of help from The Island. At least he used to. :)

The reason I like to watch Lost is because it has some sci-fi, and yet the more we learn the more it seems to be rationally explainable.

Heh. To me, the show has been moving in the opposite direction. More and more "out there." I've known people who liked the show better when it was mostly just characters interacting on a beach, and didn't like it when all the computer/DHARMA/sci-fi elements started being introduced. That ain't me, mind you. I love that stuff! :)

The bigger the picture gets, the less ghost mystery, although I expect some of it will always remain.

I hope so.

My point is not that your hypotheses is necessarily invalid, but that for me at the moment natural explanations cannot be ruled out yet either.

And my point is that, in certain cases, the HAVID hypothesis is the one with the most evidence supporting it. Doesn't prove anything, but it makes that possibility more probable.

That might easily be interpreted metaphorically,

Seems to me, when John mentions talking to The Island, he really means talking to The Island. :) Didn't sound like metaphor to me. First time I heard him say "The Island will tell us what to do," it just sounded weird. Because we'd never seen a HAVID before (or didn't realize we had). Now his statement makes perfect sense, because it means what it says.

As for your argument to play down Locke's skill... he can still kill a boar by himself, and had a good pace when he was still after Ethan alone with Jack.

Oh, I don't want to play down his skill. Locke is (normally) awesome. He's just augmented with Smokey help.

If we learn canon-way that Locke had in fact havids off screen for Jack, Walt, finding the hatch, etc then I will accept that. But until then, nope.

Well, I guess that's one nope! :) "The Island will tell us what to do." It did, and it has been.

Kelvin and Desmond used that trail the last time a couple of weeks before that, and in the last 3 years Kelvin tramped about up and down every day. That's a FACT that you constantly forget or ignore.

Once again, for like the third time, they used the back door, and we've never seen anyone walk through the hatch area going to or from the back door. If Locke was really following a trail, it would have led him to the back door, not the hatch.

I'll review it.

I checked it out. We see flames, people running towards the fire, past Locke who is looking on from a distance. It is dark, and after the people pass Locke, it still takes them a while, running, to reach the area. Locke looks pretty far away to me, though I suppose we cannot absolutely rule out that he saw something. If he did see something, he must have been just standing there watching for a long time, though. That thing was fully ablaze, and it's really hard to set logs that size on fire like that, even with fuel, which they didn't have.

sweetsunray

03-15-07, 11:01 AM

To a point. Doesn't really make the sun go down any faster, though. That last scene wasn't just cloudy, that was full darkness.

Nope it doesn't, but I've already pointed out that the nearer you get to the equator the faster it gets dark. At the equator itself its 5 mins between daylight and darkness. If it's around the southern neighbourhood of Fiji, I expect the daylight to disappear at half an hour tops.

Once again, for like the third time, they used the back door, and we've never seen anyone walk through the hatch area going to or from the back door. If Locke was really following a trail, it would have led him to the back door, not the hatch.

LOL we haven't seen shots of Losties walking past the hatch after the back door (well we did though... Eko and Charlie even used the hatch in S2), an area that's what not even a hundred yards away from the back door, and so you conclude nobody ever walked through it anymore. But we haven't heard about or seen off-screen havids with Locke, and that is the most logical explanation according to you? I didn't claim there was a trail "trail", because as we know the active trail went dead. But there is bound to be traces of unnatural re-levelling, there's the magnetism, and other signs of a living area (sound, electricity)... things people don't always consciously search for but pick up anyway.

pure.Wasted

03-24-07, 05:11 AM

Howdy-do, all! I just spent an hour+ reading up on this conversation, and must weigh in my opinion on the side of the good sergeant, if I may! ;)

Addressing the honorable Sweetsunray. :)

First of all, I'd like to refer to a scene from All the Best Cowboys have Daddy Issues:

Something like 11 minutes into the episode, Locke admits that he's lost Ethan's trail. Granted, a few minutes prior he did say that "for everything that [Locke knows] about tracking, [Ethan] knows more." This would suggest that John Locke, while possessing hunting skills enough to track prople who don't particularly know what they're doing or animals, does not have an "expert's" sense, since someone else is clearly far superior. In fact, the only reason he manages to find the "trail" again is that they stumble across one of Charlie's bands; he would have never found it otherwise, and this is supported by Locke arguing that they don't know whether Charlie dropped it or Ethan planted it on purpose, giving credence to the idea that there are absolutely no other hints, whatsoever, even on a subconscious level, that there is something there.

Going off of that, we see Locke follow the "incorrect" path when the group splits up; clearly, not even his subconscious expertise is enough to follow Ethan who is carrying Charlie. This does speak on Ethan's behalf, but it's gotta say something about John, too, since following season 3 we can assume that the Others aren't super-human by a long-shot.

Now, as a side-note: we have absolutely no evidence that either Kelvin or Desmond ever went "this way," and in fact, evidence to the contrary: the only reason Kelvin ever went out for those 3 years was to fix up the boat, which is in a completely different direction, as neither Sayid nor anyone else stumbled across it on one of their marches along the beach.

So John Locke comes in, asking Boone "Don't you feel it?" in the sort of way an enlightened man, a man graced by god, you would expect to sound (personally I'm agonstic, but I believe the metaphor should still hold."

Following that they finally come upon the hatch.

Facts: Desmond has not been out of the hatch since the day of the crash; in fact, the entire side-entrance into the Hatch is on the side, leading into another direction in the jungle. Not the way the Losties came from.

From that we can assume that John would have had absolutely no scent of either Desmond or Kelvin, simply because they would be walking in completely different directions.

Couple all that with a POSSIBLE walk around campus by Kelvin... and now we add on a month of heavy raining. And we bring a clearly not-expert tracker, as he "feels" something. He's walking in the complete dark, for god knows how long, through the rain, which would have erased any footprints weeks ago. I mean, have you guys seen the rain there? It's downpour, heavy rain.

I went through all that just to prove that there is no way to prove Locke finding the hatch "scientifically," as, from evidenced before that his skills are far from an exerpt's. Miles away from what a lay man (Jack) can see, yes, but he can be fooled. That's John Locke. Does this sound like a man who would walk for at least an hour, in the DEAD OF NIGHT under a hevy rain, say that he "feels" something drawing him... and lo, and behold! He finds the hatch.

Tell me which makes most sense to you:
1. John Locke has the skills necessary to track at night, during rain, without footprints to follow (neither Desmond nor Kelvin had ever gone there).
OR
2. All of this happened purely by coincidence. It's just coincidence that Boone's flashlight fell and showed them exactly where the hatch lies.
OR
3. Some clues or visions have already been imparted onto John Locke during his encounter with Smokie in Walkabout, and they helped him find the hatch.

Follow, then, that in answer to John's Deus ex Machina question "Why?!" we know that Smokie's beechcraft vision was intended to lead to the hatch, thereupon he saves Desmond's life (who would otherwise have shot himself; or turned the fail-safe key).

Like I said earlier, there's a few possible explanations for what's happened, and of all of them, the "visions" theory seems far more probable because and only because we know that on this island, STUFF HAPPENS. While both versions 1 and 2 have to stretch our disbelief very, very far.. Version 3 seems not only likely, but obvious; John Locke "looked into the eye of the Island" and what he saw was beautiful; this is the perfect place for HAVID#1, because following this Locke says things like "The Island will guide us."

And following that "The Island will guide us," was spoken before Locke's first on-screen HAVID, I think it's fair to assume that one happened during the Walkabout encounter.

Now no one here is saying "this is fact." But clearly, at least to me, the sci.fi. route is much more plausible in the confines of the reality set up by this show -- in which smoke monsters exist that kill people or give them HAVIDs.

Finally, going from all of this, we can assume that because a HAVID was likely to happen during Walkabout or sometime later, (hence John's quotations regarding the Island) and this makes sense of something like John knowing that Walt burned the raft, but not why he did it. It's easy to misinterpret "The Island will guide us," when it's said stand-alone, but in the aforementioned episode he goes on to say "Can't you feel it?" to Boone; the two together demonstrate an obvious tie to the island.

By the way you guys have done an excellent job with your debate.

Keep it up! :Cheers: :bump: