The Millennium Group Ideologies

[Raven Wolf]

huh,

which is very weird because my grandmother had a series of visions and mum and dad had telepathic connections with eachother, and us kids, and while we arn't bible thumpers, we are christians, and I don't remember that being a part of the bible theology.

Yeah, that's why I only said strict Christians. Not all. Some realize that visions took place in the bible, and aren't so close-minded. It's only a few that hold to such a narrow viewpoint.

[hippyroo]

hmmm, yes people of the bible had visions, and dreams.... that is true

but blood oaths are another matter

[vain68]

Once again, eloquent contributions to a topic which could easily be adapted for a MM movie. Let me once again try to provide a backdrop from which to tie seemingly diverse considerations into a unified matrix in the context of dynamical systems explanations which themselves are undergirded by complex mathematics. At the heart of it all is predictability in chaos and the need for disorganization for subsequent reorganization and final more complex and efficient organization. Let us first consider Fourth Horseman's most recent contribution:

The complexity which is Frank, Laura, and Peter, is put before us as a rich pallet of colors, a kaleidoscope of emotions. Fear, suspicion, even to a certain degree, lust. These are just a few of the myriad of sentiments which minister to a wonderfully dynamic relationship which serves as the core of this trinity.

Here we are confronted with the use of the words "kaleidoscope," "myriad," and "dynamic." These terms are very relevant to dynamical concepts, and although I am applying dynamical theory here to a relational dynamic, rather than weather patterning, or the complexity of stock-market ebbs, flows, and perturbations, such an application is certainly not without precedent as dynamical theory is gaining momentum in both neuroscience and affective neuroscience as a means of explaining the development of not only the brain's regulatory capacities, but also the subsequent "psychological" regulatory capacities of the person, which themselves are rooted in particularly the development and hard-wiring of the right brain. As noted by Schore (2002) "cells that fire together, survive together, and wire together." 4th's use of kaleidoscope carries a fractal image connotation, the tacit implication of which is changing interpersonal patterns, chaotic rhymicities, and emergent patterns. Fractals themselves are a product of dynamical interactions. "Myriad" resonates with the same flavor and "dynamic" needs no explanation.

Before addressing the topic at hand in the context of dynamical contexts, I offer a brief digression outlining some of the basic principles of dynamical systems so that the reader may become more acquainted without the complex mathematics behind this framework.

----->Dynamical systems theory offers a set of basic assumptions regarding how behavioral patterns emerge, change, remain stable, and are organized across development (Coleman and Watson, 2000). However, as Smith and Thelen (1993) point out, the basic tenants of dynamical systems theory are abstract and are not linked to a particular content domain making them accessible for application to a broad range of behaviors and levels of analysis. Dynamical systems models have been used in such diverse disciplines as psychology, economics, meteorology, and mathematics. Because of their tenants (discussed below), dynamical systems models readily lend themselves to a greater understanding of the human organism’s relational behavior.

The dynamical systems perspective assumes the whole system (in our case the human organism) is defined as a ‘self-organized structure whose dynamics are capable of generating enormous behavioral complexity’ (Kelso, Ding, and Schoner, 1993). The state of the system is dependent on the nature of the organism as observed within its total environment due to the complex interconnections among systemic components. Because it is impossible to separate behavior from the environment in which it occurs as environmental subsystems make significant contributions to the make-up of the whole system, discrete distinctions between ‘biological’ and ‘environmental’ elements are not tenable (Smith & Thelen, 1993). As Coleman and Watson (2000) note the system’s stability and vulnerability to mutation are products of the dynamic interactions transpiring among the constituent elements. In addition, dynamical systems theory postulates that behavioral development emerges from multilevel interactions, and as noted by Bidell and Fischer (1997), partitioning of variability into mutually exclusive preempts attention from the real source of developmental variation, which is the activity of the person in their environment.

In dynamical systems conceptualizations, development is conceptualized as incorporating both hierarchical and heterarchical organizational properties, which incorporate the multidimensional nature of the contexts in which developmental or behavioral processes are embedded. Bidell and Fisher (1997) note that sequential processes are incorporated with bi and multidirectionality in developmental pathways that emerge based on the interparticipation of multiple subsystems. As a direct consequence, local unpredictability characterizes the dynamic system, precluding the precise projection of the specifics of individual developmental paths or behavioral sequences, yet the prediction of global outcomes is congruent with dynamical systems orientations (Smith & Thelen, 1993).

The dynamic model of behavioral development essential espouses that diverse components are organized for functional purposes in a fluid arrangement that is determined by the maturational status of the organism, prior experiences (learning), and the current context (environment) with causal equivalence assigned to all systemic components (Coleman and Watson, 2000). According to dynamic systems theory, new behavioral statues emerge when systemic components are pushed beyond certain critical values (setpoints) or when relations among the components change (Fogel and Thelen, 1987). Any systemic component that operates as a primary agent of change is referred to as a ‘control parameter.’<----

Having discussed dynamical conceptualizations, albeit briefly, let us return to its amenability to MM, and in particular, the discussion of a 'third faction' and the seeming peculiarity or non-linearity in the transition from SI to SII. As I have noted previously, the transition from SI to SII is not 'fragmented' as seen from the perspective of dynamical properties. I refer to the curious reader to that contribution for an explication. At present, there are two things that I want to continue to address here. The first, being a third faction. One of the alluring aspects of Ethsnafu's conceptualization of a third faction is the fact that it could be construed as "emergent function" underneath the conceptualizations of DST. In explicating evil, we are presented with two attempts to understand. One grounded in scientific explanations, the other based in spirituality, or religious dynamics. It may be that an integration of both conceptualizations may yield 'the greatest harvest' in terms of understanding.

Leaving out SIII for the moment, in SI we have a presentation of the problem (evil) and in SII we have the deeper forays into the abyss of understanding the roots, the history of all evil. In both seasons, we see the dynamical concept of equifinality in evil. That is, the same outcome (death) is reached through diverse pathways be it killing as a result of psychopathology or killing as a result of allegiance to biblical prophecies or religious dogma. Death links the two; it links the Owls and the Roosters. It is final, irreversible. Thus, a link between the two groups provides fertile, rich soil for a third to emerge, more complex and functional than the other two. It can be argued that the well-adapted person "psychologically" has the ability to integrate and consider diverse aspects of phenomenon. Additionally, healthy dynamic systems are flexible, showing the ability to change in the face of exogenous perturbation. They are not rigid or 'unable to change' in the face of stress. In considering the group, and the triadic interactions of Peter, Frank, and Lara, we must keep this in mind--that healthy systems are flexible, not rigid.

In considering the triadic relational matrix of Frank, Peter, and Lara noted above, we are thrown into a microcosm of the dynamical nature of evil. We are thrown into a 21-Grams like presentation of the chaos of human relational affairs. This against the backdrop of the attempt to understand the phenomenology of evil, which itself may be best explained in dynamical conceptualizations. Schore (1997a) again notes that there are "stressful chaotic dynamics that are inherent in all human relationships." Consider commentary from the director of 21 Grams:

The new film is, [he says], "a meditation that explores some of the things in our complex lives: loss, addiction, love, guilt, coincidence, vengeance, obligation, faith, hope, and redemption. I like multi-dimensional and contradictory characters, as I am and as, I guess, are all human beings that I know. No one is simply good or bad. We are just floating in an immense universe of circumstances. I like to show their weaknesses and their strengths without judging them, because only then can they reveal things about our human condition."

I am sure we are all aware, that human relationships are particularly prone to chaotic dynamics...yet it is the chaotic dynamics that make them real. The ability of these chaotic dynamics to arouse strong affect is the binding glue that makes relationships rewarding (notwithstanding the problem of dysfunction for the moment). Interestingly, psychopaths have an inability to 'feel' certain aspects of attachment-emotional affect, and thus commit extreme acts of evil perhaps to remove themselves from a hypometabolic affectiveless state.

I propose that the chaotic dynamics present between Frank, Peter, and Lara are a natural outcome of normative human interaction. However, we can see through the haze, that Frank represents the most stable, the most flexible system of them all. He is able to negotiate in the face of stress, consider divergent viewpoints, and maintain goal-directed behavior (understanding evil) "It's my blessing, it's my curse." In contrast both Lara and Peter remain rigid (to some degree) in the face of perturbation, environmental stress, and divergent viewpoints. This leads to de-evolution of their ability to self-regulate. In the case of Lara, we see a complete chaotic-disorganized breakdown--which intriguingly the static 'white-noise' represents very poignantly. It may well be that this is the affective experience of schizophrenics or other mentally-disordered persons. Regarding the flexibility of Frank---recall in MNOTC that we see Frank attending mass with Catherine and Jordan and also recall that in Luminary, we see Catherine also remaining flexible by considering "astrology" to understand her relational situation with Frank. Strict Catholicism (e.g., Opus Dei) would frown upon this, but we are all well aware of the dangers inherent in 'fundamentalist' and/or 'rigid' adherence to any religion. Flexibility equals efficient functionality.

So, we see in MM a congruence of theory. That is, not only is the overarching concept driven by dynamical postulates--the understanding of evil--but also, on a smaller scale, the relational affairs between both central and peripheral members of the group and their family members fits well within this framework. Consider a kaleidoscope once again. Larger patterns within smaller patterns which iterate (repeat) over time. A third group would be a predictable outcome of the interaction of two dynamic sects within a system that interacts in the context of not only dyadic but triadic and quartic and so on relational matrices. Revisiting once again Ethsnafu's conceptualization of a third faction the "Foxes" and their transitional relevance "[they are] out during the times mythical creatures roam the woods and is easiest seen during dusk and dawn, the 'Between Times" (p.1). The Foxes would indeed represent emergent function. In drawing to a close, I hope I have been able to show, even through excessive circumlocution and discursiveness, that there is both stability and change in MM's presentation. There is coherence over time and within subplots and major undertakings. There is congruence and order in chaos.

Edited June 29, 2005 by vain68

[ethsnafu]

"The man of genius inspires us with a boundless confidence in our own powers."

I have just spent a rather wonderful few (maybe many more) hours of reading, scratching notes, finding links and traversing the web (and many books) simply to understand this post (I do not have the evident degree of intelligence required to be honest). This man is simply a genius. There isn't much more you can add, save to say I am utterly in awe. What I would give for one ounce of that. Simply breathtaking, all of it!

[4th Horseman]

"The man of genius inspires us with a boundless confidence in our own powers."

I have just spent a rather wonderful few (maybe many more) hours of reading, scratching notes, finding links and traversing the web (and many books) simply to understand this post (I do not have the evident degree of intelligence required to be honest). This man is simply a genius. There isn't much more you can add, save to say I am utterly in awe. What I would give for one ounce of that. Simply breathtaking, all of it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could not agree with you more ethsnafu, however, i would appreciate it and i believe many of the board members here would as well if you would give yourself more credit than you do. I get excited when i see a post from yourself, arcanamundi, vain68, Maxx, for i know it will not only be detailed to the nth degree, but accurate and thought-provoking as well. There are many others here as well, too many in fact, who also contribute in a stellar way, thats the essence of TIWWA, and it STILL to this day just utterly confounds me that a show that lasted only 3 seasons still burns with such passion in the hearts of its followers..

Vain 68 says....

"Here we are confronted with the use of the words "kaleidoscope," "myriad," and "dynamic." These terms are very relevant to dynamical concepts, and although I am applying dynamical theory here to a relational dynamic, rather than weather patterning, or the complexity of stock-market ebbs, flows, and perturbations, such an application is certainly not without precedent as dynamical theory is gaining momentum in both neuroscience and affective neuroscience."

(I shortened your paragraph a bit, hope you dont mind)

LOL, i dont know if that is a reprimand or a compliment.

Thru MY eyes, thats the way i saw the relationship between Peter, Frank, Laura, the many colors of the kaleidoscope representing the vast spectrum of human emotions that were somewhat explored in S2...you are absolutely correct in stating that of the three Frank was definately the most stable, followed by Peter, and then Laura...but my question is, if opposites attract, then the greater the opposition, the greater the attraction. Was that why Frank and Laura were developed in S2 to the exclusion of either's relationship with Peter? One would think that for the success of the group that Peter would have been a better choice. Laura's character didn't even sniff S1, only appearing for the first time in "Monsters", and yet, by the end, it was obvious that not only was there a working relationship, but a growing emotional attachment as well. Was it Wong and Morgan's intent to now "kill" her character off to continue with the concept that Frank was a loner all along? Or was it because they felt that any further development of their characters would have run the risk of tainting the intent of the show, because the next logical step for both would have been a physical relationship?

Vain 68 says...

"also recall that in Luminary, we see Catherine also remaining flexible by considering "astrology" to understand her relational situation with Frank. Strict Catholicism (e.g., Opus Dei) would frown upon this, but we are all well aware of the dangers inherent in 'fundamentalist' and/or 'rigid' adherence to any religion. Flexibility equals efficient functionality".

Correct again, yet just how long had Catherine been looking at those same charts given to her by the astrologer at the tech show, how long had she been looking at the books, pouring over them, desperately trying to find some common ground with what her husband did. And then Jordan walks over and points to a picture in the book and says "Thats Daddy"...and then to add salt to the wound, Catherine chose the WRONG picture, a statement that in my opinion that ultimately, she could look for, but NEVER find the true meaning of Frank's gift or its purpose, even seeking resolution from Peter just prior to his departure to Alaska, asking him "how do you do it"..when Peter responds that it is understanding your role in the situation and that his wife Barbara understands, she gets defensive, crosses her arms, and says "So its my fault", instead of trying to understand what Peter is trying to convey, she immediately becomes hostile...

Ok, I apologize, i am going to have to stop for now. I am presently very ill with the flu and can only muster a few moments of strength at a time. Also, but quite more disturbing was that my wife erased a new thread i was starting on the validity of the Nephilim (Biblical race of giants) and whether they were descendants of Seth or actual angels who upon their inability to resist carnal lust, fell to earth to mate with humans....Nephilim meaning "fallen one or ones"...anyway, i shall try to restart later...if you, ethsnafu, arcanamundi, or anyone else wish to take over, feel free...i just want to go lie down and rest....

in closing (oh God, when is that medicine going to kick in!!), to my three friends, Vain 68, ethsnafu, and arcanamundi, looking forward to your exquisite posts on the subject of the Nephilim, and particularily to you my good friend ethsnafu, do not demean your abilities anymore, you are truely one of the most loquacious, impassioned members here at TIWWA...to all of you, your talent is your gift, never doubt yourselves...

Till the Last Change...Be Done..

The Fourth Horseman...

[vain68]

4th, the inclusion of your words was done in a complementary fashion...Eth, thank you very much for your comments on my posts, but as 4th said, your contributions are excellent. Indeed, as you can see, I simply explained your idea of a third faction in more deeper shades--it was you, after all, that gave me the impetus to go there.

Vv

Edited June 30, 2005 by vain68

[Raven Wolf]

hmmm, yes people of the bible had visions, and dreams.... that is true

but blood oaths are another matter

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes....yes they are.... :mabiuswoz'ere:

[ethsnafu]

"Just remember why you're here,"

Was it Wong and Morgan's intent to now "kill" her character off to continue with the concept that Frank was a loner all along? Or was it because they felt that any further development of their characters would have run the risk of tainting the intent of the show, because the next logical step for both would have been a physical relationship?

Oh my friend, what I would give to know the reasons for Lara's absence during Season Three, in my mind I can only assume that as there was a clear out of everything 'Morgan and Wong' and that she was simply a casualty in Chris Carter's new vision for Millennium. I also loved the comments regarding the Peter and Lara dynamic, the relationship that was enigmatic without there actually being one. Their rapport, initially, is very strange as they rarely engage each other, share limited screen time and Peter does appear to have scant regard for her: leaving her alone, in 'Midnight of the Century', to play the proverbial 'party gooseberry' until Frank arrives to play 'mutual friend'. Though she appears in ten episodes there are few instances where Peter actively engages her in Frank's investigations, more commonly she is drawn there by device or by Frank's implicit request, but there is a rather fascinating change to Peter and Lara's relationship, a 'shifting-up-a-gear' that occurs during and after the Owls/Roosters war. If you look at the sequence of events that transpires it is incredibly intriguing in light of certain errant board members who have concluded that Lara was 'greater than the sum of her parts'.

Something, and I use something simply because the given explanation makes no sense, causes Watts to dismiss Lara from the Millennium Group, he offers her no explanation and she seems content not to be given one but simply returns home to continue her investigations into, yup...you guessed it, Peter Watts. This is interesting in itself as Lara has obtained duplicate copies of the imaging results Peter requested, results that had only just landed on Peter's desk moments before her excommunication. This is possibly the biggest hint that Lara has 'friends in high places' with a bigger fish appearing only moments later. No sooner has Lara concluded what the Owls and Roosters themselves appear to suspect, namely that Peter is involved in something decidedly Judas-like, than Peter is summoned before the group Elder to explain his concealment of the third image, the very image that Lara was unable to find amongst the duplicates. Now either Ms. Means is making strategic alliances here, feeding information to the group Elder who is, very shortly, to hold the 'Old Man's Compass' or it is a simple coincidence that someone is passing information to her and her to them.

Moments later the Old Man is to finally descend from his shack and in the midst of a rapidly degenerating Millennium Group the member he approaches first, amongst all the unidentifiable quaffle of members, is Lara, excommunicated, uninitiated Lara. I love the caveat that occurs when Lara first sees the Old Man through her spy hole, its shape taking the form of the mysterious symbol in 'A Single Blade of Grass'...

.... a symbol that Frank concluded depicted a journey to the land of the dead, a death that will open a door to another plane of existence: The Old Man's death bringing about a change that would ultimately erect charnel houses. And die he does.

From this point on there is a rapid change in Peter and Lara's relationship, if Lara really did enjoy a hitherto undiscussed mentor/teacher relationship with the man who took the mantle of 'Old Man' then this seemingly changes the way Peter views her. Things move incredibly quickly for her from this point on, there seems to be no need to argue her readiness for candidacy anymore: suddenly she is holding all the cards. In Anamnesis, Watts dispatches Lara to investigate the enigma of Claire McKenna, they have moved from requiring Frank's mediatory function to working and communicating directly for the first time, not only this but Peter remains silent in the face of Lara's threats of rank insubordination. The conversation that takes place in the corridor is incredibly telling, more so if you watch Lara's malign grin when she dismisses Catherine as not being a problem, during the batting back and forth Peter prompts Lara to "...remember why you're here," which seems innocuous until you consider that Lara already knows that Claire McKenna is channeling the Magdalene, that Ben Fisher is 'The Family', she knows the ins and outs of the Merovingian Dynasty, Grail Legend, Black Virgins, Gnosticism and so on and so forth so it begs the question what is the group there to find? Not answers as it seemingly has them all already. Things get more enigmatic when you give consideration to the following exchange:

LARA It's Lara. And now that I'm sure about who he is, I can't just watch this happen.

PETER We've watched worse things happen with less reason. You have identified him, haven't you?

LARA Yeah. I spoke to him.

PETER And the girl?

Lara doesn't respond.

PETER After all we've been through, Lara, you're just going to have to trust we're doing the right thing

What have they watched occur with less reason? What have they been through together? What is she unprepared to watch happen? I can only deduce that Peter has dispatched Lara with the mandate to kill Ben Fisher leaving Claire Mckenna without his guidance and ripe for Group harvesting. I can only conclude also, that this conversation is in reference to their shared involvement in a plot to dispose of the 'Old Man' to place a new, more pro-active Elder at the helm, the very man who both Lara and Peter appear to share both onscreen and offscreen links with. If a plot to kill Ben Fisher seems implausible then the end of the conversation appears to confirm it:

PETER After all we've been through, Lara, you're just going to have to trust we're doing the right thing.

LARA I can't, Peter. It would be murder.

Muder indeed! Not manslaughter brought about by a flagrant lack of intervention but murder, the "illegal killing with malice aforethought," of another being, with purpose, direction and intention. Lara admits as much to Catherine when she says " Whatever I did, Catherine, no matter how I manipulated certain events, Fisher was going to die in this classroom today," because if events had not transpired in the manner they did she was seemingly involved in a plot that would have killed him anyway.

Beyond the death of the 'Old Man' and the events of 'Anamnesis' it is now Lara and Peter all the way, he hides her from both the group and from Frank, both of whom tail him in an attempt to prevent her initiation, and finally gives her what she most craves, gnosis. Interestingly after she has undergone the blood ritual she has in her possession the 'Marburg Vaccine' which, as Fourth Horseman noted, implies that she has information and choice where Frank and even Peter had none. The girl's certainly come a long way in a short time. Whether you conclude, as I do, that a faction was rolling the dice behind the scenes and that Lara and Peter were witting/unwitting accomplices in an insurrection plot there is a fascinating post in which another member concluded that Lara was, in fact, Odessa. I hadn't given this much thought until last night when I wondered if Odessa, the mystical Teutonic order of Nazis united beneath a banner of the shed blood of sixteen men, could have inspired the blood-shedding-lake ritual we watch Peter Watts barely able to recall comfortably. Did Rudolph Axmann initiate Peter in the lake that runs beside his home? Guess that's another thread entirely.

Time to close the podbay doors.

P.S. Get well soon Mr. Horseman, flu can be a real downer so sending healing thoughts your way my friend.

ethsnafu

[4th Horseman]

a symbol that Frank concluded depicted a journey to the land of the dead, a death that will open a door to another plane of existence: The Old Man's death bringing about a change that would ultimately erect charnel houses. And die he does.

BINGO....i have been thinking exactly the same thing for quite some time now...i didnt post it because they are not exactly the same, there are a few lines missing, but i found the similarity to be unique...

Now in regards to Laura's involvement in "Anamnesis"...correct again, Fisher was to be the "sacrifice" or as Aleister Pepper put it more appropriately in "PPTD"

"Fortuitous and timely, hmmm? Our minor conflict of interest has been... resolved."

But just how was Laura going to achieve the group's goal without herself becoming a sacrifice (arrested and charged with his murder). Was Laura aware of the minister's son's jealousy over Claire? "Does Jesus love her more than me?" was his statement as the gun was wrestled from his hand. Is this the manipulated sequence of events that had to occur that also absolved Laura of any immediate culpability in the event? Or was this a rouge occurence that no one saw coming that still achieved the groups goals and left Laura only with a shadowed involvement??

"Fortuitous and timely, hmmm? Our minor conflict of interest has been... resolved."

I am just throwing what nots and possibilities out here at random..

Also, there is ultimately the issue of The Family and Ben Fisher. There is a scene where Catherine is handed a piece of paper from Claire's father..

Catherine unfolds a piece of paper enclosed in "The Dark is Rising" -- a

biblical painting of a young man speaking to a woman.

a reference to Fisher and Claire?

It was never implied in the episode, but how could Peter not know that they did not exist. Why send Laura, the least confident of the candidates into the mix, culminating in her getting her arse handed to her by Fisher. The contradictions i thought were very well done, the cool, calculated, confident, portrayal by Fisher of one who has lived the belief for years, against the somewhat emotional, grasping, erratic persona portrayed by Laura. Fisher's voice never oscillated, was never tinged with anger, jealousy, etc, where Laura's at times was jaded by..

1. Anger - Laura - (scoffs) You're her selfless, pious guardian is that it? Hmm?

BEN - You're angry.

LARA - (tersely) Damn right I am. You are taking advantage of a --

BEN - Be honest Miss Means -- you're angry because you're jealous. Imagine, at

fifteen, to have had someone completely

understand you, someone to explain. What

is it you see? Angels? Demons? The future?

Round 1 to Fisher...recognizes her emotion and with a cool, calm demeanor, gets Laura to recognize just what it is that is driving her anger, the fact that she is alone with her visions, while Claire has someone, a mentor if you will who will guide her ways..

Was Laura ultimately to be set up here? She was surely in over her head in regards to Fisher, and the issue of Claire caused underlying sentiments of jealousy. Was this a preliminary test of the group to see how she would handle one more powerful than herself? and what to make of her inevitability statement??

anyway, just trying to stay up with ethsnafu, vain 68, arcanamundi....not an easy chore..

Till the Last Change...Be Done..

The Fourth Horseman..

[Maxx Blackwell]

It's great to see such in depth discussion. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to review it all and understand it the way I want to - next week, hopefully.

I just wanted to express my support of what the Horseman has said with respect to ETH.SNAFU. You, ETH.SNAFU, are one of the enlightened and gifted with tremendous insight and creativity and you have a great mind. Your contributions are on par with those of everyone contributing to this discussion and while humbleness is to be admired you step on the razor's edge of self-denegration. Don't belittle yourself or your gifts. Much of what you've said is being absorbed into my brain and I think you'll find it will crop up in my stories as they unfold. Know that you have so much to offer and we're all benefitting from it.

This is who we are.

Maxx