Would you say River is the soul of the ship?

POSTED BY: PhyreLight
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 8, 2008 14:54
VIEWED: 10095
PAGE 5 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

ASARIAN

Saturday, January 5, 2008 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

I guess that's the point where we disagree. :) I don't see Serenity as an entity of her own. To me, she is imbued with meaning by the people on her, like all objects, and Mal will only be truly free when he reaches the point where he doesn't need her anymore.

Wow! If my agreeing with you becomes too annoying, just stop me. :) But I gotta say: once again, you could not be more astute in your observation, even if you tried!

Remember how Zoe first saw Serenity? As a piece of fei-oo, garbage; and a deathtrap. And Mal was most right: she won't win any beauty contests soon. But it was Mal who was willing to see past what she is, and on to what she can be. Take the cargo-bay, for instance. Objectively, it really is luh suh, all rusty and old. Yet, to us, it looks beautiful, warm, and inviting. Because, exactly like you say, it's imbued with meaning by the crew. Early's question, therefore, was most to the point: is it still a cargo-bay when it's empty? I mean, would a similar cargo-bay give the same thrill? I think not. When, in my mind, I walk down Serenity's halls, I realize I'm soaking up its atmosphere, really; the infusion of love, laughter, sorrow, and togetherness: clouds of presence, spun by the members of our beloved crew. All entirely invisble, of course, yet most missed when absent.

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

AGENTROUKA

Saturday, January 5, 2008 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

Whether we want to say River is the subconscious or not is another question entirely, but I just want to point out that I don't think, "Her effect on the others is not a subconscious one but a very aware one, too," is a valid reason for her not to be since often times you're very aware of the effect your subconscious has on you, even if not why it is having that effect.

Aren't those two things saying the same thing, almost?

They are aware of the effect River has on them: Make difficult choices. Take big risks. Ask ethical questions. Find the crazy Reaver guy. Be saved from Jubal Early.

Even though they aren't privy to all the ways and reasons River comes to affect them the way she does (They find out much later that she's a Reader) they are very aware of the effect she has on them. They don't do things about River without knowing why. They don't feel things about River wiout knowing why. They could probably all of them explain to you why they make the choices about her that they do, safe for Mal after he takes her back on the ship in the movie and that's only because he's too afraid to admit it, so really..

What you are saying is exactly what I am saying: Her effect is an entirely aware and conscious one. The reasons for those effects are River's, personally. They do not unknowingly affect the others. Jayne, Inara or Kaylee have no unaknowledged connection to the Blue Hands, that's all River and it doesn't become real for the others until they find out about it. Nothing affects them that they are not aware of. It's all in her actions, not her reasons for them.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, January 5, 2008 11:56 PM

What I'm saying is that the same can be said of your own subconscious. You are very aware of the effect it has on you. You like this person, you don't like that person, this idea comes to you, you had a dream about world domination and decided to start working towards that in a nearby industrial district, whatever.

Effects are like that, you are consciously aware of them. You have to be. If you weren't then they wouldn't be effecting your conscious at all, and thus they wouldn't be effects at all. Whenever your subconscious effects your conscious mind you are consciously aware of it by definition.

I'm not saying that River does represent the subconscious, what I am saying is that if she does then we would expect all of the crew to be consciously aware of her effect on them. So saying, "Her effect on the others is not a subconscious one but a very aware one," is like saying, "Her effect on others is exactly what we would expect."

ASARIAN

Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
What I'm saying is that the same can be said of your own subconscious. You are very aware of the effect it has on you. You like this person, you don't like that person, this idea comes to you, you had a dream about world domination and decided to start working towards that in a nearby industrial district, whatever.

Effects are like that, you are consciously aware of them. You have to be. If you weren't then they wouldn't be effecting your conscious at all, and thus they wouldn't be effects at all. Whenever your subconscious effects your conscious mind you are consciously aware of it by definition.

I think you are saying we are, by definition, aware of the subconscious effects on our conscious mind, but not necessarily aware of the causes of those effects, right?

--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:17 AM

Right, we don't know why our subconscious does what it does, but we are consciously aware of the effects it has on us.

MAL4PREZ

Sunday, January 6, 2008 12:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
What I'm saying is that the same can be said of your own subconscious. You are very aware of the effect it has on you. You like this person, you don't like that person...

So not true!! People are often very unaware of the effect of their subconscious. People act without knowing the reason, or they come up with reasons that aren't true. Denial, rationalization. It happens a lot!

Example: Jane doesn't like Sally, finds her bitchy and superior and annoying. (Truth: Sally's always talking about her experiences in college and Jane didn't go to college and feels insecure over it.)

Example: John hates the liberal left. He finds them weak and ineffective and blind to reality. (Truth: John grew up with a single mother who was a self-absorbed hippy. He projects his opinion of her on every liberal he meets.)

Example: George doesn't join his friends at the movie because he's tired and doesn't want to see the show so much. (Truth: he's an alcoholic and wants to stay home and drink, but can't admit his own priorities to himself.)

I think the subconscious is frequently controlling us without informing us. That's what it does, thats it's whole purpose. It's a survival thing - we don't have time to compute every detail of our experience every time we make a decision. Our subconscious is there to guide us. It does us good, but bad as well. Why do you think so many people pay therapists so much money? Cause they can't figure themselves out!

Edit: I do think this is different from what you're saying, because of the redirection aspect. Often, we don't even know that our subconscious has stepped up and taken action.

I think this applies to the River/subconscious metaphor...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, January 6, 2008 1:08 AM

You miss the point. Jane doesn't like Sally because her subconscious tells her so. She does not know why she does not like Sally, and can and does misinterpret her reasons for not liking Sally, but she knows that she doesn't like Sally. Jane reacts to not liking Sally in ways that she is consciously aware of.

This is like River. River says Saffron is a thief. The others do not know why she said it, and can and do misinterpret why River called her a thief, but they know that River said she was a thief. They react to River saying she was a thief in ways that they are consciously (and publicly) aware of.

People may not know the reasons for the effects that their subconscious has on them, but they are aware of the effects. Jane knows that she doesn't like Sally, John knows he doesn't like the left, George knows he wants to stay home. They are all aware of the effects, none are aware of the reasons for the effects. If they do something about the effects, Jane is snarky to Sally, John votes against the left, George stays home, they will all be consciously aware of that process as well.

-

To approach this from another direction:

If we were to posit that River represents the subconscious, then anything that remained at a subconscious level would be represented by things staying with her and not effecting the others.

When she does have an effect on the others that would be representative of the subconscious having an effect on something other than the subconscious. Something other than the unconscious is the conscious. So whenever she has an effect on the crew it is like the subconscious having an effect on the conscious.

When the subconscious has an effect on the conscious the conscious is aware of that effect, and aware of what it does as a result of that effect. Thus the crew should be aware of the effect River has on them, and what they do as a result of that effect. What they should not, necessarily, be aware of is why River had the effect she did.

They clearly don't know why River said Saffron was a thief, they don't know why she said, "Two by two, hands of blue," or why she slashed Jayne with a knife, just as a person doesn't know why their subconscious has the effects it does. They are aware of the effects, not the causes, just as with one's subconscious.

-

I'm not saying that River does represent that, I just honestly don't think the reason for rejecting it is valid.

AGENTROUKA

Monday, January 7, 2008 8:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:

To approach this from another direction:

If we were to posit that River represents the subconscious, then anything that remained at a subconscious level would be represented by things staying with her and not effecting the others.

When she does have an effect on the others that would be representative of the subconscious having an effect on something other than the subconscious. Something other than the unconscious is the conscious. So whenever she has an effect on the crew it is like the subconscious having an effect on the conscious.

When the subconscious has an effect on the conscious the conscious is aware of that effect, and aware of what it does as a result of that effect. Thus the crew should be aware of the effect River has on them, and what they do as a result of that effect. What they should not, necessarily, be aware of is why River had the effect she did.

They clearly don't know why River said Saffron was a thief, they don't know why she said, "Two by two, hands of blue," or why she slashed Jayne with a knife, just as a person doesn't know why their subconscious has the effects it does. They are aware of the effects, not the causes, just as with one's subconscious.

-

I'm not saying that River does represent that, I just honestly don't think the reason for rejecting it is valid.

Isn't, though, a characteristic of the subconscious, that it contains information we could theoretically be aware of? Information that is at our disposal but that we filter for biological or psychological reasons? And that the sunconscious reasons we have for things are directly related to their effect on us?

Because, I do not think that those things apply to River.

Her reasons for acting the way she does are generally irrelevant to how her actions affect the crew - how the crew reacts to her. Not to mention, her reasons are things the crew cannot be aware of, nor are they directly related to the crew itself.

For example:

They take on River because she's a little girl wrongfully hunted. The real reason she is hunted is entirely irrelevant to that decision.

She stabs Jayne, they lock her up in her room. The real reason she stabs Jayne is entirely irrelevant.

She identifies Saffron as a thief. The crew have no reason to know that outside of what River says. It's not a subconscious piece of knowledge they deny, more like a random newsfeed. And they entirely ignore her, rightfully.

The reason they ignore her is that they do not have information they cannot have. The real reason River knows that Saffron is a thief has zero to do with her effect on the crew at that moment.

River's secrets, in a word, generally have no effect. Only her actions do. Her reasons for those actions are generally irrelevant to how the crew would react, unlike what we associate with subconscious reasons for our behavior with are direct causes of their own effect on us. River' reasons are only undirectly related to their effect, if at all.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Isn't, though, a characteristic of the subconscious, that it contains information we could theoretically be aware of? Information that is at our disposal but that we filter for biological or psychological reasons? And that the sunconscious reasons we have for things are directly related to their effect on us?

You lost me at the last sentence. I admit that I have not studied psychology all that much, but in what I have come across I have never heard anyone make that kind of a claim.

There's an obvious counter example right in this thread where someone posted, "Jane doesn't like Sally, finds her bitchy and superior and annoying. (Truth: Sally's always talking about her experiences in college and Jane didn't go to college and feels insecure over it.)"

To me that seems very believable, I don't see any reason that the parenthetical couldn't describe Jane's subconscious reason for feeling as she does. Assuming you don't find it unrealistic either (and if you do find it unrealistic tell me) I'd like to use it as an example.

I just wrote a long thing and realized I'd probably end up just boring you. So instead I'll just ask this. Jane consciously dislikes Sally finding her bitchy and superior and annoying, what difference does it make to Jane or Sally if that is because of insecurities over college or because Sally subconsciously reminds Jane of someone else, or even that Jane's subconscious made the determination that Sally was those things?

In every case you'd have the same situation facing Jane and Sally both, since Jane is unaware of her reasoning it isn't going to effect how she decides to deal with not liking Sally.

Quote:
Because, I do not think that those things apply to River.

I should probably point out, again, that I don't really feel either way about the idea of River being the subconscious, I just disagree with your reason for refuting it. That's why there's a lack of, "No, look at what she does in ____, she's clearly the subconscious," in my posts.

I agree with you that River has information not available to the rest of the crew, for obvious reasons, however no one said, to my knowledge, that she is the subconscious of the crew members. Just as no one has said, to my knowledge, that Kaylee is the hope inside of Jayne. Kaylee doesn't necessarily know what Jayne hopes for, Kaylee probably doesn't want to know what Jayne hopes for.

When taking the crew as a whole River can never have more information than that whole, because she is a part of that whole, and in that case I'm not sure I see your reasoning.

Quote:
Her reasons for acting the way she does are generally irrelevant to how her actions affect the crew - how the crew reacts to her.

I think that, outside of therapy and deep introspection, this is true of most people's subconsciouses.

Quote:
She identifies Saffron as a thief. The crew have no reason to know that outside of what River says. It's not a subconscious piece of knowledge they deny, more like a random newsfeed. And they entirely ignore her, rightfully.

Minor nitpick: No they don't.

They assume, incorrectly, that she was referring to something else Saffron stole, not the ship as a whole.

Quote:
River's secrets, in a word, generally have no effect. Only her actions do.

If you consider her actions as being analogous to the times when the conscious and the subconscious interact I'd say that that is true of an person's subconscious as well. What happens below the surface, and stays there, does not effect you. It is only when something becomes superliminal that it has an effect.

Quote:
Her reasons for those actions are generally irrelevant to how the crew would react, unlike what we associate with subconscious reasons for our behavior with are direct causes of their own effect on us.

I'd be very interested to know where you learned that association.

When you, for example, meet someone and like them right away do you stop and rack your brain to find out wh

CBSTEVE

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 2:10 AM

My response encompasses how each character relates to the ship and the crew as if part of the whole body and the things that make us human.

Kaylee - heart, emotion, love
Mal - brains, wit, bitterness, protectiveness
Jayne - muscles, lust, fear, greed
Simon - immune system, caring, hesitation
Book - conscience and wisdom
Inara - sensual aspects, mystery
Zoe - loyalty, determination
Wash - funny bone, sense of humor
River - soul, intelligence

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE