But yea when I first saw the finale I scoffed and said “bullshit”. It took me a week to finally come around. The thing is – what would we have thought if there were 2.5 hours (or ever 20 hours) of exposition. Solving the enigmas are never fun; revealing them is the fun part. Thus: Hurley, Miles and his quips about how crazy the show has gone, meta references to other over the top Sci Fi epics (Star Wars), and confusion during the depths of the time travel era. We were endeared to Hurley; references to the Schrödinger equation or Madeleine L’Engle were just that – references.

Will be good to see you. And good to work through that deep struggle that is faith. I’m reading Bro’s Karamazov now and it’s very revealing on the issue…

Too tired for this. I am hopeing that was a fluke, and not a sign of things to come.

Hopefully, that post is not completely unintelligible. If it is, I’ll wash your car or something this weekend. Or eat bear poop. Or get in a fight with a cougar. And some bees. While juggling. (But if I do so, you owe me like buck fifty at least, for the bees.)

As someone who got quite a bit out of the first two seasons and, due to this and that, was unable to pay a tremendous amount of attention to those remaining seasons, I found myself watching the last season with only mild interest, and the final episode with little or no connection to the events, no real opinion, beyound fulfilling a desire to see it.

And yet, seeing your post, your analysis, I wanted to say that I’m thankful that someone like you fully digested the series, and was able to put together a cohesive view of the show that pulled together the beginning and the end. I felt that Jack’s death was an easy ending, a way to escape answering some of the show’s big questions. But you showed that it actually boiled down the show to its biggest arguements.

And it isn’t merely that I like your way of viewing the last episode, but that, as your friend and someone who can use your viewpoint and my understanding of how you see things in order to help me see things from another angle, an angle I quite like to see things from, one that is not just viable or valid, but helpful and a colour a shade I can use as context for my own viewpoint, one trustworthy and like a right angle, it becomes for me one with which I can come to in order to square things by. Sort of like the old divining test, the defining of something’s quality as gold by comparing its density to that which is known to be gold.

It was a personal and touching, intelligent way to view the show: and one that not only sated one’s desire for the curious, for the quizzling type of entertainment, but also inspired a heartfelt regard for it. They were characters we loved. And their vacillations between deeds of good and evil, and their reaction to the ever present possibility of redemption, it not only endeared one to them, but made of them a mirror for one’s own actions.

I come to this discussion as someone who is at a certain place in his relationship to God, one who finds, in God, himself at this moment in his life confronted by a certain realization of his own shallow definition of Faith: as idea, and not in practice, as a focal point, like a real lantern, one physical and made of glass and metal and one that warms up too hot for the touch after hours of its useage, and not merely the concept of a pathway lit seen as comforting. Not something residual. But something of residue, causing it – a lifetime of meaning falling away from it, from the details of it in its personification, its embodiment. And while this is an intellectual discussion, I too sense the whiff of its reality. That, from the show, you’ve a real consideration for it entails. That you’ve listened. I like it when I see others learning from art. Being blessed by it: enlightened, if you will.

It was good, Tim. I enjoyed it. And expect to see more in it, and from it.

by Your Polarity, wherein it is my natural duty to present opposition to your viewpoints. It’s my cross, but I bear it the best that I can… sigh.