Jump to content

Exegesis


vain68

Recommended Posts

Aside from the linear bridge needed from SII to understand the virus that killed Catherine, this episode has some underlying philosophy which strikes me as quite intriguing. The idea of "Now See" and components of the future are all good fodder for discussion. Interestingly, when the old lady tells Frank "Now See" he goes through a series of visions (progressions) in which he sees Catherine et al. In the very first frames of this sequence, I thought I saw Lara, but in reality, here is who I saw when captured at the frame level. I find this intriguing (this 'thought I saw').

post-1148-1126700609_thumb.jpg

Edited by vain68

A thought expressed by William James in 1902 and quoted by Wells deserves renewed attention: [Cleckley, 1988 5th edition]

Yonder puny fellow however, whom everyone can beat suffers no chagrin about it, for he has long ago abandoned the attempt to “carry that line,” as the merchants say, of Self at all. With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure, no humiliation. So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretensions are the denominator and the numerator our success: thus, self-esteem = Success/Pretensions. Such a fraction may be increased as well by diminishing the denominator as by increasing the numerator. To give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified; and where disappointment is incessant and the struggle unending, this is what men will always do. The history of evangelical theology, with its conviction of sin, its self-despair, and its abandonment of salvation by works, is the deepest of all possible examples, but we meet others in every walk of life….How pleasant is the day when we give up striving to be young—or slender! Thank God! We say, those illusions are gone. Everything added to the self is a burden as well as a pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Aside from the linear bridge needed from SII to understand the virus that killed Catherine, this episode has some underlying philosophy which strikes me as quite intriguing.  The idea of "Now See" and components of the future are all good fodder for discussion.  Interestingly, when the old lady tells Frank "Now See" he goes through a series of visions (progressions) in which he sees Catherine et al.  In the very first frames of this sequence, I thought I saw Lara, but in reality, here is who I saw when captured at the frame level.  I find this intriguing (this 'thought I saw').

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Vain...i thought the very same thing when i watched the episode...could it be that because it made both of us THINK we saw Laura, perhaps that was the intent of the director/etc. The similarities i have a hard time believing are a coincidence...i have a comparison of "Lauras" below, there are some differences, but in the time it takes for a single frame to flash by, they would be inconsequential...

or could it be that Kristen Cloke was holding out for more $$$$ to appear in S3 and thus the need to use a "double"? LOL...

..another mystery...good find..and good to see you crusing the board..

post-1098-1126713786_thumb.jpg

post-1098-1126713798_thumb.jpg

"And behold, a pale horse, and he who sat on it, his name was Death. Hades followed with him. Authority over one fourth of the earth, to kill with the sword, with famine, with death, and by the wild animals of the earth was given to him." REV 6:8

fourthhorsemananimatedsigna3rr.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fourth,

rest assured that I am ALWAYS lurking. :nope: However, as you personally know, my time is very systematic. At any rate, SIII is EXACTLY what I need as a way to shift didactism. Yes, it is possible your idea but the more I think about it, the more I think they only wanted to show his immediate family members in the progressions. That is, Catherine and Jordan and not Lara (btw, is it Laura or Lara--I think it is Lara if I am not mistaken--this is nitpicky, but I am curious nonetheless.) Now this might be the key difference between CC and M&W. I think, based on the script, that CC takes a very familial, traditional, conservative family aspect to religion, faith, and exogenous circumstance whereas Morgan and Wong were more liberal in their thinking and views regarding this. Does anyone know if CC is a Catholic?

post-1148-1126723007_thumb.jpg

A thought expressed by William James in 1902 and quoted by Wells deserves renewed attention: [Cleckley, 1988 5th edition]

Yonder puny fellow however, whom everyone can beat suffers no chagrin about it, for he has long ago abandoned the attempt to “carry that line,” as the merchants say, of Self at all. With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure, no humiliation. So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretensions are the denominator and the numerator our success: thus, self-esteem = Success/Pretensions. Such a fraction may be increased as well by diminishing the denominator as by increasing the numerator. To give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified; and where disappointment is incessant and the struggle unending, this is what men will always do. The history of evangelical theology, with its conviction of sin, its self-despair, and its abandonment of salvation by works, is the deepest of all possible examples, but we meet others in every walk of life….How pleasant is the day when we give up striving to be young—or slender! Thank God! We say, those illusions are gone. Everything added to the self is a burden as well as a pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fourth,

rest assured that I am ALWAYS lurking.   :nope:   However, as you personally know, my time is very systematic.  At any rate, SIII is EXACTLY what I need as a way to shift didactism.  Yes, it is possible your idea but the more I think about it, the more I think they only wanted to show his immediate family members in the progressions.  That is, Catherine and Jordan and not Lara (btw, is it Laura or Lara--I think it is Lara if I am not mistaken--this is nitpicky, but I am curious nonetheless.)  Now this might be the key difference between CC and M&W.  I think, based on the script, that CC takes a very familial, traditional, conservative family aspect to religion, faith, and exogenous circumstance whereas Morgan and Wong were more liberal in their thinking and views regarding this.  Does anyone know if CC is a Catholic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Vain...by the way, i was wrong, it is Lara, not Laura...sorry..anyway, since the show concerns remote viewing, physic abilities, etc, astral projection, and if it is only Catherine and Jordan that the directors are interested in showing, then by exclusion, it can't be Lara..could it be that Frank is given a vision of Jordan at a much later age? Could this be Jordan in her 20's? Otherwise, how does it fit? If its not Lara, then it has to be Jordan, right?

its amazing how such a little quirk can become a great discussion topic..

The Fourth Horseman....

feel free anyone else...jump right in...

"And behold, a pale horse, and he who sat on it, his name was Death. Hades followed with him. Authority over one fourth of the earth, to kill with the sword, with famine, with death, and by the wild animals of the earth was given to him." REV 6:8

fourthhorsemananimatedsigna3rr.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn,

I had a reply to this (rather lengthy) all typed out and then something went down and I lost it.

I see it relating to the Human Condition Fourth, I'll expand more perhaps this evening, but losing that really chapped me.

A thought expressed by William James in 1902 and quoted by Wells deserves renewed attention: [Cleckley, 1988 5th edition]

Yonder puny fellow however, whom everyone can beat suffers no chagrin about it, for he has long ago abandoned the attempt to “carry that line,” as the merchants say, of Self at all. With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure, no humiliation. So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretensions are the denominator and the numerator our success: thus, self-esteem = Success/Pretensions. Such a fraction may be increased as well by diminishing the denominator as by increasing the numerator. To give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified; and where disappointment is incessant and the struggle unending, this is what men will always do. The history of evangelical theology, with its conviction of sin, its self-despair, and its abandonment of salvation by works, is the deepest of all possible examples, but we meet others in every walk of life….How pleasant is the day when we give up striving to be young—or slender! Thank God! We say, those illusions are gone. Everything added to the self is a burden as well as a pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Stranger

That's the woman from "The Innocents" teaser who is afraid to bring down the plane. And Carter didn't write either episodes. :wtf:

My question is what does this mean?

Screenshot097.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stranger,

Of course the identity of the woman was never in question. I was just struck at the subliminal level at the likening to Lara. But a systematic review revealed that indeed it wasn't. What I had originally typed out and was set to post was something along these lines---and it is good to know (now) that CC did not write either episode.

For me, there is a deeper symbolic level to what the producers/writers are trying to say than the overt plot, screenplay which must create linearity and a structural lattice in the series. For example, the beginning two episodes of SIII can be seen as a necessary bridge to satisfy the lay public regarding the Marburg virus et al. However, in redacting to 4th's query, I think the progressions that were associated with the old woman's "Now See" relfect the underlying idea of the 'human condition.'

There were two basic ideologies as I seem them in MM. One was to tap the public's fear of the coming MM, the other a brand new look at evil in the context of serial killing and other incidents of violence--whatever their manifestation. The problem is that these two were slightly incompatible. CC taped a 'coming fear' vis a vis an extant condition (one that was gaining popularity at the time) in the form of serial killing and violent crime. M&W expanded this in the 2nd season more fully by taking a look at the nature of evil itself, rather than its form. They did this simultaneous by creating an outward screenplay that fit in with the idea that "the world was going to end." However, the last 1/4 of II and the beginning of III in my mind were a mistake in their transformation of the group into a 'demonic' entity simply for the fact that, in regards to the human condition---which seems to be an underlying structure to the whole series---you have relational disturbance, disagreement, and in-fighting.

Now, back to the progressions with the old woman. When Frank engages in his soliloqy he states that we get "tantalizing" visions of the future but that they don't tell us what is going to happen, but rather that the future exists. This goes back to the quote in MNOC in which Watt's says "possible futures exist like branches on a tree...". In a sense, a future is dynamic and can take a multitude of pathways depending on a given perturbation or event. We see Jordan in these proressions in my mind as a reminder of the nature of the human condition. That is, the human condition will 'taint' her in some form, but whether it sets her on an adaptative or maladaptive course, one can not tell. Thus, Frank's commentary of we only know of THE future, but not A future. This 'theme' is reiterated again and again in all three seasons, and unfortunately, due to the necessity of having to provide an overt linearity to the series, it may have become shrouded. The same goes for the idea of a third faction etc. Interestingly, one of the sequences in the intro that remained for all three seasons was the woman collapsing inside the culvert---the loss of hope. That is a symbol of death, of mental acquiescence and ultimately, the utter implosion to the perturbations of the human condition.

Edited by vain68

A thought expressed by William James in 1902 and quoted by Wells deserves renewed attention: [Cleckley, 1988 5th edition]

Yonder puny fellow however, whom everyone can beat suffers no chagrin about it, for he has long ago abandoned the attempt to “carry that line,” as the merchants say, of Self at all. With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure, no humiliation. So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretensions are the denominator and the numerator our success: thus, self-esteem = Success/Pretensions. Such a fraction may be increased as well by diminishing the denominator as by increasing the numerator. To give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified; and where disappointment is incessant and the struggle unending, this is what men will always do. The history of evangelical theology, with its conviction of sin, its self-despair, and its abandonment of salvation by works, is the deepest of all possible examples, but we meet others in every walk of life….How pleasant is the day when we give up striving to be young—or slender! Thank God! We say, those illusions are gone. Everything added to the self is a burden as well as a pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest A Stranger

Vain68,

The most obvious connection in terms of the woman's apperence to me is the woman from "Force Majure" and I can see no connection. Both seem to be from the mind of Johannessen. He also makes this implied continuity with Samiel in "Powers..." and "Borrowed Time." It does create the sene as Frank says in "Powers.." that he is a part of something most of us are all together unaware of." A sense that there is something bigger going on.

I think the purpose of the vision in "Exegesis" is to awnser Frank's fears about the future that the Group gave him. In the recap aired before the premiere of what happened last season, there is the scene where Frank tells Catherine he cannot leave the Group until he "knows what the future will bring. I think that is it's purpose, to awnser that question. Frank seems to rid himself of the the Group mentality about the future and prophecy and adopt a new one.

In regards to the series' ideologies, I think it's importatnt to note that Carter genuinley believes, or at least takes the idea of Satan and Evil very seriously. The originaly premise was to explore human evil in Carter's words. But from episode two, the idea of Legion is introduced from the word go, by Carter in "Gehenna." The point that for him at least, the idea of real, violent human evil and the idea of the Devil are not mutually exclusive. The idea was to explore those two. I dont't think this was understood by most of the staff writers of year one. "Human" evil is Law and Order and "supernatural" evil is X-Files for most audiences. This is the biggest difference between Carter's MLM and Morgan and Wong's MLM. I think it's obvious Morgan and Wong did not take the concept of Evil very seriously. They gave it rules and mytholgy to follow. It wasn't scary it was comical. It's not that I dont' like it, but I think it is clearly something different. The same subject matter but a complety different underling idealogy.

I get the feeling when watching season three that the writers took the ideas presented in the episodes much more seriously. I don't know much about Chip Johannessen but his episodes and year three have a much more spirtual slant, with no one specific religion in mind but an exploration of the ideas.

As far as the MLM Group, I think it was just handled very sloppy from the beginning of season three. I have mixed feelings about the Group in every way though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stranger, it wasn't necessarily the woman in Force Majeur but the man on life support who was the brain child behind the gig.

Interestingly, have a look at the episode synopsis over at the Abyss.

Summary: An unusual man prepares his bizarre family of cloned daughters for the great apocalyptic disaster of May 5th, 2000. While attempting to investigate a seemingly paranormal chain of events linked to these blonde-haired, blue-eyed girls, Frank Black and the Millennium Group find they have a thorn in the side in Dennis Hoffman, a man who is a self-proclaimed expert on the great planetary alignment that will cause the anticipated disaster.

How eerie is this?

A thought expressed by William James in 1902 and quoted by Wells deserves renewed attention: [Cleckley, 1988 5th edition]

Yonder puny fellow however, whom everyone can beat suffers no chagrin about it, for he has long ago abandoned the attempt to “carry that line,” as the merchants say, of Self at all. With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure, no humiliation. So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do. It is determined by the ratio of our actualities to our supposed potentialities; a fraction of which our pretensions are the denominator and the numerator our success: thus, self-esteem = Success/Pretensions. Such a fraction may be increased as well by diminishing the denominator as by increasing the numerator. To give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified; and where disappointment is incessant and the struggle unending, this is what men will always do. The history of evangelical theology, with its conviction of sin, its self-despair, and its abandonment of salvation by works, is the deepest of all possible examples, but we meet others in every walk of life….How pleasant is the day when we give up striving to be young—or slender! Thank God! We say, those illusions are gone. Everything added to the self is a burden as well as a pride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Max Fenig

I believe A Stranger hit it dead on when he describes the purpose of the vision in "Exegesis". I was incredibly impressed by the said scene for the very same reasons. At least it made up for the use of the phrase "psychic spies". :bigsmile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines