Monster

[ethsnafu]

This is the beauty of MM (and I'm keen to keep on topic with this). We have Frank who does see the horror, he's seen the suffering, but he keeps his objectivity (until maybe season three when the fight against the group becomes an emotionally personal issue). He sees what makes a monster, he understands what they might have suffered, or the torment they endure, or the impulses they can't control - doesn't mean he agrees with them, or sympathises with them - he just deals with the problem as it is presented. Notice the character isn't pro punishing them, or judging, simply his mandate is to keep those people - whatever their motivations - away from those who harm others.

I agree on so many levels my friend and wonder how much of this is due to our shared nationality? Odd but intersting..

I would only ever tentatively allude to Millennium having a moral subtext but there are numerous occasions during the Seasons where the writers via the characters bemoan the use of absolutes when dealing with evil. By far the most blatant is during 'Bardo Thodol' when Frank refuses to accept Hollis' proclamation that Peter is evil. Despite the considerably lengthy list of conspiracy and morbidity that can be attributed to him by this point he denies Emma's absolute and charges her to remember that no-one is beyond redemption. Given that the episode is set against an alchemical thematic of transformation from corrupt to transcendental there are numerous motifs within it that support the episode's moral narrative. There are recurrent nods to metaphysical concepts here, the Bardos', Alchemy and Buddhism all of which are essentially poetic or philosophical expressions of the state of the soul in brilliance or corruption and strive to remind us that evil is often the byproduct of evil, never simplistic, never easy.

In 'Goodbye Charlie' the 'Group' encourage Lara and Frank to proclaim judgement on Kiley but they ask not for a judgement bereft of consideration but that the two of them understand before they judge. Despite Frank's assertion that Kiley is 'evil' Lara again denies an absolute being formed in the narrative by arguing that Euthanasia, whilst criminal, may be merciful and welcome from a medical and secular locus of perspective. There is a powerful thematic on display throughout this episode that it is essential to be understood as well as judged and that only with understanding can a judgement be deemed correct. As the Group themselves state at the cases inception "Lara, should we assist to arrest this subject..?"

In fact, if one were to judge Millennium as a whole one would have to conclude that it is Frank's unadulterated ability to break 'evil' down into a conceptual, understandable, workable theoretical factors and variables that so aids and supports his facility. Frank Black would be a 'lesser' man for adopting absolutes and 'pavement assumptions'. His acquaintance with criminology, psychology and forensic biology are the keystones to his success as an allied agent of Law Enforcement and many episodes, including 'Monster', seek to illustrate how hurried assumptions, stereotypes and cultural ignorance struggle to engender a satisfying conclusion. In this instance the combined efforts of two individuals with a firm foundation in the psychological sciences result in a success that less congitive approaches, namely the rash and presumptuous reaction of the less informed, could not.

If we still struggle to accept that conceptual models of understanding have any viable place in Law Enforcement one should consider that we are assembled here because of a show that argued this very case. Frank Black is a criminal profiler, one who is schooled in study of the wills, thoughts, intentions and reactions of criminals and the application of this theory in the solving of crime. Profilers are essential in the deconstruction of serial murders and often assist in lowering the number of victims. Without their knowledge base, interest, devotion and understanding those who proclaim that such consideration is not necessary would be bereft of options. Within the realm of judgement and punishment it is the role of Profilers, in concert with criminality, to reconstruct behavior from the physical evidence then look for patterns in that behavior, and illuminate the behaviors within the context of a specific crime or series of crimes, to a specific criminal offender, a requirement for prosecution that could not be undertaken by Law Enforcement Officers who are lacking in the theoretical expertise and training to do so.

All said and done,

If Millennium did not present the most valid case for the power of 'understanding' in respect of evil then I struggle to find a show that does.

If it's a case of 'shoot' or 'learn' then I know where Frank would stand.

My sincerest best wishes to you all,

boring Eth x x

[hippyroo]

"You'll see people stand up for their friends and relatives as good honest people who they know could NEVER do an evil act, only to find that those people were the culprit, and were doing things they never dreamed, with secret impulses they couldn't but give in to. Anyone is capable of "evil" because evil isn't a simple absolute. Motivations and drives can bring it out anywhere - again, just as in Millennium."

Is evil then a complex absolute? I do know that we find evil in absolultly every place on earth.. In fact every culture has explanations and solutions for evil. Buddhist blame desire for suffering. Hindus see it as working out karma. Modern man has come up with things like personality disorder or poor socialization. Some even embrace evil as the honest truth about how things are. No matter how we explain it - it doesn't go away.

Your assertion that "motivations and drives" are what causes is not far from my idea that evil is rooted in selfishness? But I think we very much disagree on evil.

"Frank refuses to accept Hollis' proclamation that Peter is evil. Despite the considerably lengthy list of conspiracy and morbidity that can be attributed to him by this point he denies Emma's absolute and charges her to remember that no-one is beyond redemption."

Redemption indicates that something needed to be forgiven. It's not that Peter isn't evil, but that he is still savable. The Frank Black I viewed seemed to have absolute distain for the evil he saw, and like JOB, continued to refuse to accept it's intrusion into his life. I see this character quick to recognize and judge evil. In fact, he's kind of a hothead about it!

[Raven Wolf]

All said and done,

If Millennium did not present the most valid case for the power of 'understanding' in respect of evil then I struggle to find a show that does.

If it's a case of 'shoot' or 'learn' then I know where Frank would stand.

Well said. More often than not, you manage to find the words that express how I feel on a subject far better than I ever could.... Are you borrowing the other half of my brain to use along with your own, already far superior, intellect? (kidding)

[Guest Jim McLean]

I do know that we find evil in absolultly every place on earth.. In fact every culture has explanations and solutions for evil. Buddhist blame desire for suffering. Hindus see it as working out karma. Modern man has come up with things like personality disorder or poor socialization. Some even embrace evil as the honest truth about how things are. No matter how we explain it - it doesn't go away.

Perhaps its time for you to define what's "evil". That statement carries a very broad analysis of two different religions and loosely defines scientific discovery as something we've recently "come up" with. To prevent this all going down hill, its important for you to define what "evil" is to you. After all, evil can be very subjective - often bound to national, sociological or personal contexts. "Evil" and "good" are so subjective, I'm very interested to see if your definition has any global quality to it. Afterall, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, our patriot soldier murders and tortures for the right cause, while the enemy does it maliciously. A man can still be stoned in Iran for acts which in the US would be considered acceptable - both see their viewpoints as "good". A man with severe mental illness can be executed in Texas for the cause of good, yet be seen in California as a miscarriage of fair justice? What is "good?" What is "Evil"? A homosexual for one man will burn in hell for being a homosexual, but to another is one of god's children? How easy is it to define the absolute? Or how much is simply the burden of preference? It's all very much subjective to what you define as "evil" - just as in your example of Buddhism - Furthermore, Buddhists aren't concerned as evil per se, but reaching an enlightened state, the moral Western question of defining "evil" isn't really part of it, and by their notion of what's wrong, rather than what's evil, doesn't necessarily bracket into what's evil, otherwise accumulation of property and possessions is an absolute evil, which few believe on it it own to be.

What Millennium tried to show IMO, was the vice-like grip some of these personality disorders or poor socialization factors do control people - from a human angle. We all have impulses. It amuses me when people say homosexuals can be homosexuals providing they don't do the act, and can't understand why they have the need to "act" on such evil/wrong behaviour - without ever considering how heterosexuals would survive such abstinence. If priests are an example of heterosexual abstinence in effect, I think we can see how powerful impulses are - even when we give ourselves to a higher cause.

We can't ignore impulses, personality disorders or environmental/social problems - and I think you'd be short-sighted to do so. This isn't something people have now "come up" with, its fact. People who are abused - who are victims - often abuse themselves. Is it that they are a simple "evil", or are they part of a cycle of bad behaviour? Those trapped with psychological disorders can often suppress the "evil" with pills. Interesting that something we "came up" with as an idea about evil, actually can control it? Or maybe, the "evil" is just a biological factor?

I'm not mocking you here - I'm trying to show you that these simple examples you offer really don't give any idea into what you are suggesting. Science has enlightened us to a lot of the causes of wrong behaviour, and it has helped us to not just curb it, but identify areas where it might surface. Furthermore, its helped us stop those being harmed unfairly for actions they can't control.

Again, I may seem like I'm lecturing you, but your opening statement was very vague but very specific - that all philosophies are merely different ways of identifying "evil", which I think was a non-sequitur for human science isn't look for "evil" its merely trying to help society find those who are dysfunctional and prevent them from harming themselves or others. It's nothing to do with evil - and I think many would be offended at the suggestion that science is looking to stop "evil". It's not.

I just can't see a blanket absolute. We don't seem to deem natural behaviour as evil - creatures from the wild, who can live in similar social hierarchies and commit crimes of power, passion and dysfunctional behaviour are simply animals - we don't look for evil in their behaviour, yet we do in our own social output. If one studies animal groups, particularly in primates, there are some remarkable behaviour similarities - its quite scary.

So I would be fascinated about what one defines as evil - how far does it go? How does one measure it? I would say their are some horrendous things done in this world, some which make me squirm, and I don't pretend to understand how they are done, but I'm a firm believe not to judge by our own standards, merely work to maintain the social security we desire. I suppose I'm a wrong and right guy, rather than a good and evil. :)

Your assertion that "motivations and drives" are what causes is not far from my idea that evil is rooted in selfishness? But I think we very much disagree on evil.

Everything is motivated in selfishness. There is no such thing as a selfless action, be it empowering one's sense of righteousness or following an imposed mandate from one's own environmental background. Everyone is selfish, so unless everyone is evil, that train of thought doesn't work.

Redemption indicates that something needed to be forgiven. It's not that Peter isn't evil, but that he is still savable. The Frank Black I viewed seemed to have absolute distain for the evil he saw, and like JOB, continued to refuse to accept it's intrusion into his life. I see this character quick to recognize and judge evil. In fact, he's kind of a hothead about it!

He had a disdain for social evil. And despite the shows confused stance over natural and social evil, Frank was a profiler throughout - he looked for evil born in behaviour, disorders, impulses and abuse - not through pure evil. Even at the end, he doesn't enjoy the punishment of the chair for the man who brought such pain to his family.

At the same time, I think by season two and certainly season three, the show had shifted so much from social evils to pure evils, it makes assessing Frank hard. He becomes complicated because the show enjoys two forms of evil and the character has to adjust to scenarios of both. You'd think a man suffering "The Curse of Frank Black", "Antipas" and the ilk wouldn't continue profiling as he does in the final season - you'd think you'd see social evil differently, but he doesn't. So Frank is a complicated man when it comes to "evil", so I'm not suggesting my standpoint is concrete at every turn! :)

Edited March 22, 2008 by Jim McLean

[hippyroo]

Laredo,

Evil]from Websters: 1 a: morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>

Wikkipedia: Evil is a broad term used to indicate a negative moral or ethical judgment, often used to describe intentional acts that are cruel, unjust, or selfish. Evil is usually contrasted with good, which describes intentional acts that are kind, just, or unselfish.

I think the key point to your "lecture" is whose morality? I suspect you are a student or victim of constructivism? This "is a view in philosophy according to which all knowledge is "constructed" in as much as it is contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. Constructivism proposes new definitions for knowledge and truth that forms a new paradigm, based on inter-subjectivity instead of the classical objectivity and viability instead of truth. " Or are you a moral relativist? Do you think, that standards of good and evil are only products of local culture, custom, or prejudice.Where do you find what is permissible and what is not? Do you feel that each culture makes it's own rules? Or is there some set of master rules that trump what societies might come up with?

"Furthermore, Buddhists aren't concerned as evil per se, but reaching an enlightened state, the moral Western question of defining "evil" isn't really part of it, "

Buddhists do deal with evil: "Why Evil?

People have free will to commit wrongs or rights. Evil doings may result when egoism, cravings, attachments, and ignorance are expressed as greed, hatred, and violence, which, if unmitigated, is perpetuated through rebirth. " I do think it is ironic that the Buddhist want so much to want nothing. Or should I say so very much desire to have no desire?

"Afterall, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, our patriot soldier murders and tortures for the right cause, while the enemy does it maliciously. "

Actually the soldiers fighting FOR freedom would be the freedom fighters. Not every war has clear cut good guys and bad guys, but If the soldiers are fighting to make everyone Muslum and to continue to treat women as pack animals, they are clearly not freedom fighters. Now if it's the indian wars in America, I'd say you have a good point. Of course you'd have a good point with the Blackfoot and Illini killing each other off too. Of the 30 or so "conflicts" or wars going on in the world today I can only argue for a couple as understandable, but nothing as clear cut as defeating NAZI Germany.

"We can't ignore impulses, personality disorders or environmental/social problems - and I think you'd be short-sighted to do so. This isn't something people have now "come up" with, its fact. People who are abused - who are victims - often abuse themselves. Is it that they are a simple "evil", or are they part of a cycle of bad behaviour? Those trapped with psychological disorders can often suppress the "evil" with pills. Interesting that something we "came up" with as an idea about evil, actually can control it? Or maybe, the "evil" is just a biological factor? "

We all have impulses, it's what we choose to do about them that separates us. I've tried to make the point in previous posts that not all people that are sexually abused as kids then abuse kids. Not all people that are raised in "perfect" socioeconomic conditions turn our to be wonderful, well adjusted human beings. Freewill or depth of character plays a role. Honestly, I don't know what to make of schizophrenics. I know medical doctors disagree on it's causes and treatment. But you know, you can drug a pedophile, and he won't rape until he gets off the drugs. And yes, I am short-sighted; it's called myopia and I wear contacts or glasses to correct it.

"its{Science} helped us stop those being harmed unfairly for actions they can't control."

As I understand it science says pedophiles can't control themselves;yet, I still feel they ought to be drawn and quartered for the evil they do.

"I just can't see a blanket absolute. We don't seem to deem natural behaviour as evil - creatures from the wild, who can live in similar social hierarchies and commit crimes of power, passion and dysfunctional behaviour are simply animals - we don't look for evil in their behaviour, yet we do in our own social output. If one studies animal groups, particularly in primates, there are some remarkable behaviour similarities - its quite scary. "

I believe in absolutes and you are absolutely certain I am wrong. I agree with Blaise Pascal's observation that "It is not certain that everything is uncertain."

I very much believe that man is not just another animal on this planet. If we are just a product of evolution - sort of biochemical entities - then what is the point of morality at all? If we are all just animals that will turn to dust when we die; then do whatever the hell you want - there's no point to it all. Eat, drink and make merry for tomorrow we die.

"Everything is motivated in selfishness. There is no such thing as a selfless action, be it empowering one's sense of righteousness or following an imposed mandate from one's own environmental background. Everyone is selfish, so unless everyone is evil, that train of thought doesn't work."

Do you have children? Raising children can give insight to real unconditional love and unselfishness. Man is capable of being unselfish and even noble at times. Of course "man is so vain that when he does do something humble he wants to make sure everyone knows what he did." Blaise Pascal. and yes, I believe we are all born in sin and live in a fallen world; we all have done evil.

"but I'm a firm believe not to judge by our own standards, merely work to maintain the social security we desire"

Whose standards do we judge by? Or do we not judge at all. And what if my standard is that I don't give a crap about your social security? I'm gonna take by might whatever I want for me and mine? Where does the idea that it is not right for a group of well armed people to come in and steal everything you have come from?

"

He {Frank Black} had a disdain for social evil. And despite the shows confused stance over natural and social evil, Frank was a profiler throughout - he looked for evil born in behaviour, disorders, impulses and abuse - not through pure evil. "

MLLM is full of demons. I think we get our first glimpse in GEHENA? And by THE JUDGE there is little doubt that evil as something preying on man is a theme of the show. One of Frank's great challenges is refusing the temptation to make his life easier by joining Lucy/Pepper. We also get hints that evil wants Jordan too. Part of Frank's gift ( and curse) is that he sees evil. The demons in SOMEHOW SATAN GOT BEHIND ME discuss this openly. Does this mean he has no compassion? NO! Does this mean he does not try to always do the right thing? NO! Frank loves his neighbor as himself. But does he love LUCY? Goodness no!

Well, you certainly drew me into a long post tonight! I trust you take this all as philosophical, religious, millenniumalistic debate and not personal attack?

[Guest Jim McLean]

MLLM is full of demons. I think we get our first glimpse in GEHENA? And by THE JUDGE there is little doubt that evil as something preying on man is a theme of the show. One of Frank's great challenges is refusing the temptation to make his life easier by joining Lucy/Pepper. We also get hints that evil wants Jordan too. Part of Frank's gift ( and curse) is that he sees evil. The demons in SOMEHOW SATAN GOT BEHIND ME discuss this openly. Does this mean he has no compassion? NO! Does this mean he does not try to always do the right thing? NO! Frank loves his neighbor as himself. But does he love LUCY? Goodness no!

Again, as I said, Millennium is a diverse beast and there is no doubt pure evil exists in MLM, but in the first season it was more ambiguous and could even be metaphorical as it was literal. After that, the track was chosen. The show deals with both social evil and pure evil, not always in tandem, but thats because the show is there for entertainment not to fly the flag for either notion.

Personally I don't think Frank is bound to these moral codes you state. He doesn't love Lucy, but he doesn't want to see her punished - or drawn and quartered as your ideology speaks of evil, he simply wants her out of his life. Even in "Monster" he wishes no pain, drawn or quartering against the girl, he just wants her stopped. You never see him getting satisfaction out of punishing as part of his ideology. Again, MLM, evil and Frank are difficult pretty inconsistent subjects.

If I was summarise Frank, I would say regardless of what evil he sees, be it social or pure evil (and it does seem to swings and roundabouts on the issue), his reaction isn't to punish or damn those who are evil, he just wants to protect people from it - whatever its source.

As for the rest, yes, I believe in morals based on social expectations, that itself stems from basic pack desires for protection. This can create the formation of complex and different social units, but societies want to protect their family units.

More antagonistic social groups are born in areas where there are external threats, more lax and democratic ones are born from safer environments, all are about survival and in some sense so is morality. Obviously when we look at how this works specifically it gets FAR more complex, but the basis of morality is protection, and protection is a key survival element.

I know you don't see us en par with animals, but after seeing such strong parallels in animal behaviour, seeing primates commit consensual adultery, grieve, hate and play; seeing parallels in bringing offspring of human and animal species, and seeing how much of who we are links into our basic natural drives and urges, I personally can't ignore the connections!

You speak of children as being unselfish love, in my opinion this again is just another property of genetics's - natures demand we protect our young. Its not really about good or evil, its just people obeying the whim of their programming - which is why our snotty nosed little child is wonderful and all the others seem more dirty. :)

As for Buddhism, it depends on what sort of "evil" on refers to - which was why I asked. Buddhists - from what I see - don't believe in evil as a force, but as an act which humans do. It's a quantification of human actions, not a malign force from some outer influence. Buddhist look to achieve enlightenment through cleansing of such acts. From what I understand - they do believe in evil, but not Evil - which was what I was referring to (rather poorly probably).

As for pedophiles, well, you know I believe in looking for outcomes which serve the community but look to harm as little as possible. We have to be careful how we judge other people's impulses, or whether we need judge them at all, beyond the need to prevent them from doing such things again and of course, creating a deterrent to keep social order. But unless we've walked in those shoes, I don't think we can say how easy it is to chose between obeying and fighting impulses, just as it would be very hard for most males to take abstinence - even Priests devoted to God fail, so its a hard to really say what people in certain circumstances should, or shouldn't do.

They say that we are sculpted largely by our parents and then our environment. Unless we understand those problems or live those influences, whose to say how they should act? How can we say for others when we've not walked a mile in their shoes? I do firmly believe we should judge people less by what we think they should do, and judge them on what they do and deal with those problems the best for all concerned - that's my social ideology.

Anyway, that's what I believe - you asked! :) Let's now move on away from the personal introspection. Interesting stuff, but off topic and I think we get where we both come from!

Edited March 23, 2008 by Jim McLean

[hippyroo]

"Anyway, that's what I believe - you asked! :) Let's now move on away from the personal introspection. Interesting stuff, but off topic and I think we get where we both come from!"

No, I really don't get where you come from.

"and judge them on what they do and deal with those problems the best for all concerned - that's my social ideology."

Because you don't explain what is best for all concerned and how we all know what is best for all?

Reason for Edit: Although no complaint has been received, the potentially libellous suggestion which could cause offence and misunderstanding by third parties has been removed. Please ensure that no similar comments are posted in future without due consideration, that could be misconstrued by others or that may cause personal offence to any member of the community.

Thank you for your understanding.

Edited March 26, 2008 by The Old Man
See post comments.

[Raven Wolf]

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."

I don't think he is justifying this terrible act at all. He is simply saying the same thing that I believe, and have expressed here before. I TRY not to jump to conclusions about another person & what they did, but wait to learn about them and look for the Why.

I think, if only by viewing this discussion, it is apparent that each of us is very different.... From different backgrounds, different DNA, different cultures. That doesn't make any of us BAD. Just different.

People with certain mental disorders have incredible physical strength. Because if the imbalance if their brain, and their increased strength, a man may pick up a fuzzy little kitten, and hug it, squeezing it so tightly that the kitten is killed. Does that make him evil?

Please do not use that analogy to ignite another debate. I will not respond to any discussion regarding my analogy. I am NOT comparing the accidental killing of a cat to the rape of a child. I am simply saying that we sometimes cannot see the forest for the trees.

These are excellent points made by all. Let's just keep it civil, ok?

[Raven Wolf]

Is the idea of evil as a disease any more ludicrous than to assert we can be affected by some supernatural force?

I think I saw that episode of The X Files!

[HighPlainsDrifter]

WHY DO PEOPLE GET SO OFF TOPIC ON MY THREADS!!!!!