One mans future…
….is another mans past.
Its July 20th, 1969. Neil Armstrong steps off the Eagle and walks across the surface of the moon. He speaks ” One small step for man, one giant leap for…AES?”
He says this while viewing a flag of a giant eyeball, in the exact spot where the U.S. flag should go.
How could this be possible. Could I have gone back in time, traveled to the moon, and planted my flag before he does? Or did he come to “my” present, when I travelled in time and I just beat him to the punch?
Why is the future of one, neccessarily the future of another? Its not.
At least on Lost its not. Its very easy to say you cannot change the past. Its common sense almost. But on Lost, the past to one, is the future/present to another. So why at that point, is it impossible to change anything. The only explanation of this is the loss of free will. Fate takes over, full control. But we have come to some agreement that one is in control, until they timetravel to the past. Whether it is a part of history or not, it is still the present from the perspective of the timetraveler.
Yes, I know all about history books, and how they work. Something happens in history, its recorded, and we learn about the past of the world. A time before our own.
What makes me crazy, and I am truly not saying I am correct, but when there are people, who are from different timeperiods, existing in one timeperiod, whos timeperiod is it? What is it the past to? Who is it the past to? If Sawyer goes back in time, but he has never experienced it before, can it really be his past? And for that matter, if he is in the past, hanging out with Horace, it is not Horaces past either. So whos past is it. The past of time? That doesnt even sound right. The past of true real world time? Isnt/wasnt Sawyer a product of the real world?
My point being, I understand why people…highbrow…says you cannot change the past. It makes sense. You cannot go back in time, in your life, and make something signifigant, change. Otherwise you may never acyually get to the point where you would have to change it, because it never happened. I cant help but argue this idea, for the simple reason that one persons past is anothers present/future. Who is to John Locke he cant do something…WHO? John, at this point, has accomplished just about everything he said he was going to accomplish. Yes, there is more to it, but Johnnys not done yet.
This is a hard subject for me to argue, I have been doing it since I have been posting. But I must say that I think if there is a question to dispute the ‘past cannot change’ theory, than the ‘who’s past is it’, could be a reasonable dispute.
Feel free to comment, argue, whatever. This is in fun for a reason. That reason is that twofold.
1) I am so tired of arguing this topic.
2)I, truly dont have a real, legitament argument. No real defense at this point.
I just want to make you aware of the question I continually ask myself. And the fact that I will be standing blindly beside this idea to the end.