Comments on: Jacob’s Choice – The Ultimate Weapon http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/ A place to write and read Lost Theories Thu, 17 May 2012 19:43:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Achalli http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-21351 Achalli Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:27:28 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-21351 Ifoundmyloophole I would say that that would be a fair assesment. In order to say 'No' in the way that I'm talking about one would have to be prepared to sacrafice everything, including their own life. And also they would need to have the Faith that in the end everything would be set right. I'm glad you enjoy this post. I have found that this concept is present in every story ever told no matter if the author points it out or not. It drives the plot in all stories in one way or another. And you are correct that it can be a hard concept to wrap your head around. Ifoundmyloophole I would say that that would be a fair assesment. In order to say ‘No’ in the way that I’m talking about one would have to be prepared to sacrafice everything, including their own life. And also they would need to have the Faith that in the end everything would be set right.

I’m glad you enjoy this post. I have found that this concept is present in every story ever told no matter if the author points it out or not. It drives the plot in all stories in one way or another. And you are correct that it can be a hard concept to wrap your head around.

]]> By: Achalli http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19969 Achalli Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:50:53 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19969 I want to thank everyone for their thoughts and comments. AES it's good to hear from you. You always provide very insightfull comments that make us think. I think you have a great handle on what I am trying to get across. Roland, after rereading and taken into account AES comments, you do have a point. What i was trying to convey was that altough I did use specific examples, I am trying to apply this in a bigger picture sort of way. What I am trying to get across with all of this is that the only entity that has any control over any of these indidviduals are the individuals themselves. The only person who made Ben follow Jacob's orders was Ben himself. Every person has the choice of saying NO to someone else's, or something's, control. I want to thank everyone for their thoughts and comments.

AES it’s good to hear from you. You always provide very insightfull comments that make us think. I think you have a great handle on what I am trying to get across.

Roland, after rereading and taken into account AES comments, you do have a point. What i was trying to convey was that altough I did use specific examples, I am trying to apply this in a bigger picture sort of way.

What I am trying to get across with all of this is that the only entity that has any control over any of these indidviduals are the individuals themselves. The only person who made Ben follow Jacob’s orders was Ben himself.

Every person has the choice of saying NO to someone else’s, or something’s, control.

]]> By: Tas http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19968 Tas Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:12:29 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19968 Can I throw in a personal example, Eko I agree to a point, but I think what Achalli was getting to (correct me if I'm wrong) is when people choose to go against their socialisation, conditioning, programming and do something different. Personal example, I grew up a quiet, don't rock the boat person, I wasn't important enough to stand up so I went with the flow, anytime I did anything it was wrong. Even as an adult I saw some stuff in my job that made me scream inside I felt it was so unjust - but my conditioning had me do nothing (and then feel bad about it). Since moving up in my career I've had to fight that, there are times when I need to get up and say something publicly that I know will be hugely unpopular, that will bring down a bucket load of attacks, sometimes personal in a public forum and it makes me sick to stand up and do that, often I don't, I'll take the easy way out. BUT I think Achalli is talking about thoses times when we make a decision to do something that our insides are saying NOOOOO, when we feel violently ill inside BUT we get up and do it because we think it's right. Yes maybe we were always going to do that and the times when we do very much influence our future choices (often making it easier to stand up and say NO again - the world didn't end, although in Lost maybe it will ;) ). I'd like to think that when I decide to go against that internal feeling of 'just shut up' it wasn't predetermined, that I am being active. A very narcissistic post sorry, but I didn't know how to get my point across using Lost. Can I throw in a personal example, Eko I agree to a point, but I think what Achalli was getting to (correct me if I’m wrong) is when people choose to go against their socialisation, conditioning, programming and do something different.
Personal example, I grew up a quiet, don’t rock the boat person, I wasn’t important enough to stand up so I went with the flow, anytime I did anything it was wrong. Even as an adult I saw some stuff in my job that made me scream inside I felt it was so unjust – but my conditioning had me do nothing (and then feel bad about it). Since moving up in my career I’ve had to fight that, there are times when I need to get up and say something publicly that I know will be hugely unpopular, that will bring down a bucket load of attacks, sometimes personal in a public forum and it makes me sick to stand up and do that, often I don’t, I’ll take the easy way out. BUT I think Achalli is talking about thoses times when we make a decision to do something that our insides are saying NOOOOO, when we feel violently ill inside BUT we get up and do it because we think it’s right.
Yes maybe we were always going to do that and the times when we do very much influence our future choices (often making it easier to stand up and say NO again – the world didn’t end, although in Lost maybe it will ;) ). I’d like to think that when I decide to go against that internal feeling of ‘just shut up’ it wasn’t predetermined, that I am being active.
A very narcissistic post sorry, but I didn’t know how to get my point across using Lost.

]]> By: ekolocation http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19953 ekolocation Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:48:49 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19953 it can be argued that saying no isnt really a choice either... that you were going to say no because of your experiences and thoughts and feelings. like when jacob tells ben: i want you to know that you have a choice. and ben replies: what choice do i have? you may see a choice in front of you, but once your decision is made...was there really any other option? Your past has influenced the choices of your present, in a continual causual cycle. perhaps only an "outside force" like jacob (or desmond) can truly change anything. it can be argued that saying no isnt really a choice either… that you were going to say no because of your experiences and thoughts and feelings. like when jacob tells ben: i want you to know that you have a choice. and ben replies: what choice do i have? you may see a choice in front of you, but once your decision is made…was there really any other option? Your past has influenced the choices of your present, in a continual causual cycle. perhaps only an “outside force” like jacob (or desmond) can truly change anything.

]]> By: Tas http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19945 Tas Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:43:36 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19945 I love the way you all make me think. Some thoughts on where I feel this theme may play out and how it may link with the other big theme of the show, being lost. As AES put, yes and no don't necessarily mean that, I think it's about passivity and action as two ends of a continua. To stop and really think and then decide to take action with an understanding and acceptance of the consequences is where we break our automatic programming of going with the flow thoughtlessly. I think that our characters will 'find' themselves when they do this and with Jack having been set up as the main protagonist (flawed as he is) I think the 'war' in whatever form it takes next season will be decided by Jack needing to 'find' himself and take action. I don't think he's done that yet, he is still acting based on his programming 'I can fix this'. Daniel gave him a way of fixing the 'mistake' of the crash and so Jack being Jack he's off to fix it, without any real thought for the actual consequences - he hasn't seemed to realise how many lives he will alter for better or worse just because he doesn't like how it's all played out and he just wants it to go away, change and not know about happened. The others (Kate etc..) are also just doing what they do - following the leader. I'm thinking that through season 6 Jack will need to come to terms with his complusion to fix and to actively decide and accept his decision not to. Then he is 'found'. The other characters will also need to find themselves and be active, but I think that Jack is the one who will make a difference to the outcome. I love the way you all make me think. Some thoughts on where I feel this theme may play out and how it may link with the other big theme of the show, being lost.
As AES put, yes and no don’t necessarily mean that, I think it’s about passivity and action as two ends of a continua. To stop and really think and then decide to take action with an understanding and acceptance of the consequences is where we break our automatic programming of going with the flow thoughtlessly. I think that our characters will ‘find’ themselves when they do this and with Jack having been set up as the main protagonist (flawed as he is) I think the ‘war’ in whatever form it takes next season will be decided by Jack needing to ‘find’ himself and take action. I don’t think he’s done that yet, he is still acting based on his programming ‘I can fix this’. Daniel gave him a way of fixing the ‘mistake’ of the crash and so Jack being Jack he’s off to fix it, without any real thought for the actual consequences – he hasn’t seemed to realise how many lives he will alter for better or worse just because he doesn’t like how it’s all played out and he just wants it to go away, change and not know about happened. The others (Kate etc..) are also just doing what they do – following the leader.
I’m thinking that through season 6 Jack will need to come to terms with his complusion to fix and to actively decide and accept his decision not to. Then he is ‘found’. The other characters will also need to find themselves and be active, but I think that Jack is the one who will make a difference to the outcome.

]]> By: A.E.S. http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19944 A.E.S. Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:57:44 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19944 I screwed up a paragraph in my comments towards the end...sorry, a little rusty... I think the rest of them said “Yes” UNTIL... Kate, because she just went along with Jack. Juliet, because Sawyer looked at Kate. And Sawyer, because Juliet rejected him ...when they went with Jack, they were saying "no" by trying to change fate as well. I screwed up a paragraph in my comments towards the end…sorry, a little rusty…

I think the rest of them said “Yes” UNTIL… Kate, because she just went along with Jack. Juliet, because Sawyer looked at Kate. And Sawyer, because Juliet rejected him
…when they went with Jack, they were saying “no” by trying to change fate as well.

]]> By: A.E.S. http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19943 A.E.S. Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:50:46 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19943 I dont even know where to start on this... No, yes, yes no...fate... free will...yes, yes... As I read through the comments quickly, and I urge all involved in this debate to reread again...you are all saying extremely similar things. I think the same direction is being followed by all, just with possibly a misunderstanding of the context Achalli is presenting it in. Daddy, good to see you... I think that by saying no in this manner, it is being implied that you are simply saying no to the situation of going with the flow in general. If one was told day after day, that it was their job to eat in front of a starving child, telling them no everytime they asked...and the employee eventually gave into their heart and said "yes" to the child when asked for food...that would be considered Achalli's "NO" to the system. Words only mean what you perceive them to mean. Sorry, kind of hars example, just want it to be clear and easily understood. Tas...Good to hear from you... I think a good example of a big picture evil on the show is Locke killing Nadia just because Ben said they were bad. He went along for the ride, and although they were bad, Locke was played as to this point...the question is, how far back does it span. If he was actually used by Ben or MIB at the time (more likely Ben), he commited in my eyes a Big Evil of murder... sorry, that just came to mind immediatly of reading your question. On the note of a passive aggressive saying no, as opposed to yes due to personality type... I think that what it comes down to is that its not the passive aggressive person that would have to say "no", its the malicious compliant person that has to do it, which is kind of what they did by trying to stop fate from occuring, which is most likely why Jacob wanted them to go to the island. The passive agressive person's "no"...would be to say "yes". Oh, and Tas, love the line of thought behind the Ben and Charles idea. Charles choose to not just say no to Ben, but to the island, the others, and even Jacob unless he knows more than we think...which I presume he does. Achalli, dont kill me if Im screwing this up... Roland...Good to see you... I have to respectfully disagree with Jack embracing Fate by setting the bomb off. I DO believe that it is very possible he caused the ultimate scenario in the future that we know so well to play out...BUT, that isnt quite the debate here... He wasnt embracing fate, he defying it proudly, spitting a hydrogen bombs guts in its face...he thought he was saying no, he thought he was stopping fate from happening, and preventing the future, and the crash of flight 815 right along with it from occuring. I think the rest of them said "Yes". Kate, because she just went with Jack. Juliet, because Sawyer looked at Kate. And Sawyer, because Juliet rejected him. I think they said yes, in Achallis line of thinking...metaphorically, by allowing fate to play out. It is when they help set off the device, and try to prevent fate, that they say no. Ok, now Achalli... Something Roland said has to be taken into consideration... using the word script, as to what Jack and company were doing. I cannot help but allow the intertwining of fate and free will...that Jack was SUPPOSED to say "NO"... Good thoughts, and Achalli, great conversation starter for the sites return. I dont even know where to start on this…

No, yes, yes no…fate… free will…yes, yes…

As I read through the comments quickly, and I urge all involved in this debate to reread again…you are all saying extremely similar things.

I think the same direction is being followed by all, just with possibly a misunderstanding of the context Achalli is presenting it in.

Daddy, good to see you…
I think that by saying no in this manner, it is being implied that you are simply saying no to the situation of going with the flow in general.

If one was told day after day, that it was their job to eat in front of a starving child, telling them no everytime they asked…and the employee eventually gave into their heart and said “yes” to the child when asked for food…that would be considered Achalli’s “NO” to the system.

Words only mean what you perceive them to mean.

Sorry, kind of hars example, just want it to be clear and easily understood.

Tas…Good to hear from you…

I think a good example of a big picture evil on the show is Locke killing Nadia just because Ben said they were bad.
He went along for the ride, and although they were bad, Locke was played as to this point…the question is, how far back does it span.
If he was actually used by Ben or MIB at the time (more likely Ben), he commited in my eyes a Big Evil of murder…
sorry, that just came to mind immediatly of reading your question.

On the note of a passive aggressive saying no, as opposed to yes due to personality type…
I think that what it comes down to is that its not the passive aggressive person that would have to say “no”, its the malicious compliant person that has to do it, which is kind of what they did by trying to stop fate from occuring, which is most likely why Jacob wanted them to go to the island.

The passive agressive person’s “no”…would be to say “yes”.

Oh, and Tas, love the line of thought behind the Ben and Charles idea.
Charles choose to not just say no to Ben, but to the island, the others, and even Jacob unless he knows more than we think…which I presume he does.

Achalli, dont kill me if Im screwing this up…

Roland…Good to see you…

I have to respectfully disagree with Jack embracing Fate by setting the bomb off.

I DO believe that it is very possible he caused the ultimate scenario in the future that we know so well to play out…BUT, that isnt quite the debate here…

He wasnt embracing fate, he defying it proudly, spitting a hydrogen bombs guts in its face…he thought he was saying no, he thought he was stopping fate from happening, and preventing the future, and the crash of flight 815 right along with it from occuring.

I think the rest of them said “Yes”. Kate, because she just went with Jack. Juliet, because Sawyer looked at Kate. And Sawyer, because Juliet rejected him.

I think they said yes, in Achallis line of thinking…metaphorically, by allowing fate to play out.
It is when they help set off the device, and try to prevent fate, that they say no.

Ok, now Achalli…

Something Roland said has to be taken into consideration… using the word script, as to what Jack and company were doing.

I cannot help but allow the intertwining of fate and free will…that Jack was SUPPOSED to say “NO”…

Good thoughts, and Achalli, great conversation starter for the sites return.

]]> By: Roland http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19942 Roland Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:19:27 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19942 Achalli you used the Losties blowing up the bomb as an example of their way of saying no to fate not me. Jack embraced Fate last season or at least that's what he thought he was doing by blowing up that bomb. He said yes to what John had been trying to tell him all along. Jack repeatedly said this was what he was meant to do or used words that meant the same thing. The rest of them Kate, Sawyer etc. tried to say no but finally did just go with the flow. I'm sorry you don't agree with me bringing this up but it is a pretty valid point. Achalli you used the Losties blowing up the bomb as an example of their way of saying no to fate not me. Jack embraced Fate last season or at least that’s what he thought he was doing by blowing up that bomb. He said yes to what John had been trying to tell him all along. Jack repeatedly said this was what he was meant to do or used words that meant the same thing. The rest of them Kate, Sawyer etc. tried to say no but finally did just go with the flow. I’m sorry you don’t agree with me bringing this up but it is a pretty valid point.

]]> By: Achalli http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19937 Achalli Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:46:08 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19937 Roland, I'm actually thinking a bigger picture than just the bomb going off. Someone is going to have to say no to Nemesis. Tas, the situation you're describing shows how universal this concept is. It is the very basis of every story. Daddyx, it is not about just saying or doing the opposite. In my post 'An Ordinary Answer' I discussed how a person needs to recognize and overcome the fact that most of the choices and actions of their life are merely based on the 'programing' in our brains. This 'freewill' is an illusion. Like it or not, humans react to stimuli reflexively like animals do. In order for a person to to have true freewill, they will have to say no to their programming Roland, I’m actually thinking a bigger picture than just the bomb going off. Someone is going to have to say no to Nemesis.

Tas, the situation you’re describing shows how universal this concept is. It is the very basis of every story.

Daddyx, it is not about just saying or doing the opposite. In my post ‘An Ordinary Answer’ I discussed how a person needs to recognize and overcome the fact that most of the choices and actions of their life are merely based on the ‘programing’ in our brains. This ‘freewill’ is an illusion. Like it or not, humans react to stimuli reflexively like animals do. In order for a person to to have true freewill, they will have to say no to their programming

]]> By: Roland http://www.theoriesonlost.com/2009/11/jacobs-choice-the-ultimate-weapon/#comment-19924 Roland Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:42:09 +0000 http://www.theoriesonlost.com/?p=6948#comment-19924 I still see Jack and company setting off the bomb as a script they were playing out. Faraday put the thought into Jacks head and we know Faraday had knowledge of past events. If they do say no to fate and exercise freewill it will have to be in the future/ present. I still see Jack and company setting off the bomb as a script they were playing out. Faraday put the thought into Jacks head and we know Faraday had knowledge of past events. If they do say no to fate and exercise freewill it will have to be in the future/ present.

]]>