I finally get it. I'm not supposed to get it. Wait, what?
"Lost Episode 6x15: Across The Sea" was a tougher puzzle to solve than the last few. But what did it all mean? All season I have been saying something to the doubters/haters of the philosophical brilliance of the Flash-Sideways method of story telling, but didn't know what i meant until now: It's not what they answered, It's what you were hoping to find out.
Who knew that I had it figured out all along?
After last night I am certain that Lost isn't telling a story as much as it is philosophizing on the way things are. The island, as a cork, is after tonight, an even more fascinating metaphor for what the island is... for what the world is for some people. Is it a coincidence that we didn't see this "Source" light go out when Man-In-Black was thrown into the abyss, and that the Cork and Light metaphors don't really line up? Not at all, but I'll explain that later.
In Across The Sea, Lost attempted to tell us that from now on, and since the beginning of time there has been a struggle between those that have found purpose in the stories we have been told (Jacob,) and the quest for future purpose (man-in-black.) The idea of finding purpose in what you are destined to do, as opposed to making your own. Which one is right? The answer just might be that there is no answer. Or neither. Both seem to be directionless, according to Lost, or at least a means to a life of unfulfilled. Hardships woven together, in a tragic inability to let go. Maybe we are supposed to accept what we are given. Or maybe some truth lies in the age-old adage "If we can't learn to live together, we are going to die alone."
I'll admit. I didn't like the episode at first. But upon comparing some of its coarse thematic elements I found a pretty reasonable parable.
Like many parents in LOST, It seems the nameless adopted mother, to Jacob and the nameless Man-In-Black was a bit crazy. A Rousseau. A Claire. Hell, even a Christian Shepard: A parent who had an overwhelming impact on the beliefs of her children, albeit on a more subconscious level. And even If we are meant to believe this is as far back as we will ever see in Lost Mythology, it was implied that she was born to someone else, just as her mother was, and her mother before her. All of this, is part of a vicious cycle. Did her mother mess her up? Is the the product of a similar long con?
Whatever her actual story, she divided her beliefs into two very separate, but equal view points: Jacob, the one who was meant to be born, the one with a pre-determined name and a predetermined existence, and the one who was a mistake, an accident and therefore special. Against his will, MIB was treated as someone who was not meant to be, and therefor had a purpose exterior to that of the island world. This wasn't a problem until they the kids discovered there were other people out there, Across the Sea. But metaphorically speaking, there was sin across the sea. Sin continued to come to the island, and fight and kill, and corrupt. Jacob and MIB needed a purpose to stay pure, or not fall from grace, or more literaly, leave the island. In order to ensure their directionality Jacob and MIB were shown a... fountain of light?
Really? Yeah, I thought it too. So, that's it? I thought it was a cork, or I thought there was a pocket of electromagnetic energy. Or Blah blah blah. Well, before we get deeper, first think about all of the other purpose fulfilling reveals of Lost:
They ware shown a puddle full of light. But what about when Alpert needed one, he saw a cork. Locke needed one, he found a hatch. Desmond needed one, he pushed a button for three years. The men of faith on this show have found ways to direct themselves to a greater purpose. Meanwhile, the empiricists have seen the same things and found ways to destroy those men. In other words A Jack for every Locke. A smokey for every Jacob. Forget not that all of these people are the victims of their own predecessors attempts at predestination.
So who is right, you ask? Was Smokey lying to everyone all along? What's the deal with Walt? Was he special? What was the point of the Hydra island? Was Charlie supposed to die? What are the rules that Ben and Widmore are playing be? Is it a cork? Is it just an island? These are all important questions... After all Maybe it is just a fucking island. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's all self-proposed purpose. Maybe it is special. Maybe it's all what you make of it. Maybe they'll never tell us.
That last maybe was a joke. They definitely won't tell us.
Wait, what? I thought you figured it out? Why won't they tell us?
Because maybe that's the point. These vagaries, these mysteries are all open to interpretation by the two sides to the same coin. Or better yet because no one knows the answers to these questions. These narrative decisions are no mistake. It is interesting to me to think that the nameless antagonist idea now is fundamentally clear as an narrative choice. It meant something. At their core, Jacob and Man In Black are the exact same person. Born on the same day from the same woman, but they are two completely different people. One has a name and the other doesn't. One has a purpose and the other one seemingly doesn't, but it is merely the opposite purpose of Jacob's. The nature vs. nurture argument is prevalent here. It seems that nurture prevails as the problem in this instance. The Man in Black feels betrayed the most by a mother that won't let him explore his potential, his roots, his origins, and even though Jacob is granted the ultimate responsibility, and eternal life, he is downtrodden, and feels that he is loved the least.
Can or Will the Man in black get off the island? No. In the same way that Jacob never achieved his ultimate goal: To prove that man is a pure soul. We have all been asking, and discussing some of the oldest questions, and debating mysteries that cannot, and will not be solved. There are no answers, only questions. And every question will only lead to another one, and while that was a brilliant writers trick, it says a lot about their seemingly aesthetic choices over the years. All of the unanswered questions finally begin to propose a bigger thematic idea: Which one are you? Are you an empiricist or a man of faith. Someone who finds truth in answers, or truth in experience. Rewards in exploring, or in soul searching. I never questioned this before. If you were to ask me yesterday if I was a logical person, I would say yes, but after this episode, after seeing how I've viewed Lost the last few years (hell, even this season) I think I might be a man of faith after all. Believing that ultimately there is a purpose for my being, and that the questions, however big they may be, are not a means to any end.
It is unfortunate that half of Lost's audience are empiricists. I learned this the hard way by watching half of the audience from my weekly viewing storm out upset. Upset that they did not leave with more answers than they did. But as we approach the finale and the creators propose Radio silence after the finale, I think maybe the joke is on us. No matter the reaction, it's the discussion they proposed from the start. It's all a game, between Light and Dark. Faith and Empiricism. No side is right or wrong, they are two completely different ways of looking at the world, and if we cannot learn to accept that our ability to see the world in either way is no fault of our own, but the way we are raised, then we are going to continue to hate, fight, and corrupt each other in ways that lead us nowhere. Or maybe each go around is just progress (Jacob's words, not mine)
