July 2003 posts


Previous July 2003  

More July 2003

Intentions - Good or Evil -- Rina, 15:11:41 07/24/03 Thu

While reading this essay called, "On Emotions, Redemption and Atonement" by Nomad; I came across this interesting passage. It said:

"If a man commits an evil act thinking of his loved ones, do we say, "Oh, well, in that case, it wasn't actually a crime?" No. We say we understand why he did it, but that doesn't change the fact that it was *wrong*. And yet when Spike does something good because of his misguided feelings for Buffy, hardly anybody's willing to say that no matter why he did it, it was still *good*.

Opposites, people. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to redemption is paved with bad ones. If you can fall into evil from an innocent start, you can rise into good from a selfish one."

The above is probably one of the most interesting passages I have ever read in a BUFFY essay. And it resonates with some of the comments I have read not only about Spike's attempts at redemption, but with one of Angel's actions I have been debating with others on another forum.
[> As I see it -- Diana, 15:25:21 07/24/03 Thu

People are willing to say the ACTION was good, but not the ACTOR. These people really aren't concerned with the action, because what matters is the actor. To us what determines whether the ACTOR is good or not are motives.

Just how I see it. Not to say that other systems are not valid. That just isn't how I see things.

And for this debate I will quote the writers until I am blue in the fingers. Spike prior to getting a soul isn't about redemption or good/evil or anything like that. I would love to see some discussions about what Spike's story was prior to S7 that have nothing to do with redemption.

Then again, I would love to come up with a good name for HonorH's story, but am experiencing severe blockage right now.
[> [> some religions -- sdev, 17:18:51 07/24/03 Thu

Judaism credits the deed not the intention.
[> [> [> I don't know if this is entirely Christian doctrine or not but... -- Scroll, 21:27:18 07/24/03 Thu

The way I was raised (Christian) much emphasis was put on a person's personal motivations. Let's say I donate $100 bucks to a worthy charity. Yes, giving donations to a charity is a good thing. But if my heart is not in the right place, I myself am not "good". The action is good, but not the actor. (So yes, I do kinda subscribe to Diana's view.) Say I donate the money in a prideful manner, in that, "Oh look at me, I'm so generous. I'm wealthy and I'm willing to prove it by giving lots of money to this charity." My money will still benefit the charity in question, but my soul (in the Christian sense, I'm not talking about vampires here) is only full of selfishness and arrogance. But if I donate that money out of true compassion, then both the action and the actor are "good".

Now, whether Spike doing good things for love of Buffy or for any other reason means he is a "good" man, I don't know. I'm not going to debate that -- simply cuz I don't know, not because I'm afraid of starting another flame war. But my above explanation is how I see the difference between "good" acts and "good" people.
[> [> [> [> good acts -- sdev, 22:25:38 07/24/03 Thu

I believe in Judaism your motivation for the act of charity would not matter. The act itself would count. OTOH Judaism isn't very big into salvation anyway. The emphasis is more on the here and now.

I don't know if all Christian sects even believe in good deeds as a means to salvation. In some sects there is the concept of election (Calvinism)regardless of deeds. I never quite grasped the difference between that and predetermination (maybe there is none)but it kind of smacks of the PTB to me.

In terms of motivations for actions that are considered self-serving versus altruistic, I paint with a wide brush. Negative motives such as greed, pride, lust (this is beginning to sound like a list of the seven deadlies)I may see as detracting; but positive motives, in which I certainly include love, the quintessential Christian and Judaic (love thy brother as thy self) virtue, as praiseworthy and redemptive.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: good acts -- Scroll, 23:37:23 07/24/03 Thu

I don't know if all Christian sects even believe in good deeds as a means to salvation.

I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) pretty much all Christian sects, if you get right down to it, do not believe in good deeds as a means to salvation. Good deeds are part and parcel to living a good Christian life in that one's good deeds follow as an effect of your salvation. It's the "fruit" you bear, if you'll pardon the jargon :)

I think election refers to the select group of people (don't ask me who!) that are predestined to go to heaven. Predetermination is similar, but refers generally to the idea that everybody has a path set out, to either be "saved" or to go to hell. Twenty-three years of Sunday school and I still have no idea about these things!

In terms of motivations for actions that are considered self-serving versus altruistic, I paint with a wide brush. Negative motives such as greed, pride, lust [...] I may see as detracting; but positive motives, in which I certainly include love, the quintessential Christian and Judaic (love thy brother as thy self) virtue, as praiseworthy and redemptive.

I think I agree with this for the most part; in daily living, when dealing with self-serving acts, I place higher value on positive motives like love than on negative ones like greed. However, I also see some loves as barriers in the way of true redemption/salvation. (Again, I was brought up conservative Christian, so please bear with me! This is just an example!) Take Jesus saying to his followers that "anyone who wants follow me must hate his mother and father" (paraphrased, of course!). Basically he says that to follow him (be redeemed), one must focus on Jesus/redemption itself and not "other loves" that will only keep you from salvation.

Or in other words, what is your priority? If your priority is your mother, you obviously can't put Jesus/redemption first. If you're going to be a missionary in the streets of Toronto, you can't be doing it for your parents back home. I mean, you can try but it probably won't sustain you (in the Biblical way of thinking, and I agree). You have to be doing it because you believe in it, and because you care specifically for the people in the streets of Toronto.

Okay, whew! Sorry to get into it like that. I realise most poeple (even those raised Christian) won't see things like that. I'm just trying to explain my position. I think Spike has done good things, and I think his search for a soul was him trying to be a "good man" insofar as he knew how (he knew he needed a soul to make "being a good man" possible).

As for whether Spike, pre-"Seeing Red", wanted to be a good man, was trying to be a good man, and was actually making headway in being a good man, I think viewers must judge for themselves. Obviously I come from a different background, and my perspective is that before his epiphany in "Seeing Red" in which he realised he was at an impasse, a standstill in which he was neither a good man nor a good "evil" demon, Spike was not a good man. Post getting a soul? I don't know if he was good, bad, confused, insane, needy, noble, whatever. I am too confuzzled about Season 7 to say anything about it :)

So! Did that all make sense? Hoping it did ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> To me you summed up this wonderfully -- Diana, 08:25:04 07/25/03 Fri

Obviously I come from a different background, and my perspective is that before his epiphany in "Seeing Red" in which he realised he was at an impasse, a standstill in which he was neither a good man nor a good "evil" demon, Spike was not a good man. Post getting a soul? I don't know if he was good, bad, confused, insane, needy, noble, whatever. I am too confuzzled about Season 7 to say anything about it :)

And I liked the emoticon :-)

If Spike is acting out of good/noble motives, it makes getting the soul pretty moot. To me it totally takes away from his story, and I admit that I tend to be a bit zealous in my defense of the story. I don't particularly care about the characters. Angel can be a total loser as a human and totally insecure as a vampire. Buffy can be a total ditz and have trouble relating to others. Spike can be a pathetic, evil, selfish creep. It is all for the good of the story.

Joss has great things to say in his DVD commentaries. One thing he attempts to show is that no one ever thinks they are wrong. In their mind, everyone is completely rational and does the right thing when they act. I think they do this exceedingly well with Spike. Spike believes that he loves Buffy and that his motives are noble. James Marsters does an amazing job conveying this. For that reason there is a sizable chunk of the audience that believes this.

Joss has also said that Spike really, really REALLY loves Buffy, but a vampire is incabable of the altruistic love that humans are. The way I see the Buffyverse is that we have the Passions of which love is the strongest. These Passions are then filtered through the vices and virtues. ONLY a creature with a soul has the virtues. A vampire ONLY has the vices. So when you filter this amazing love that Spike has for Buffy through the vices, you get creepy, obsessive, possessive, stalker vamp love.

Spike doesn't think this. He thinks that he has the noble love that humans are capable of because we possess a soul and therefore the virtues. Buffy realizes he is incapable of this and will not call what he feels love without qualifying it. As she says in CwDP "in his own way" he loved her.

The debate, IMO, should boil down to this particular type of love, not just saying that Spike loves Buffy. Season 5-6, Spike's character was used to explore human relations, not redemption. I would really love to see this explored.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To me you summed up this wonderfully -- Arethusa, 09:07:51 07/25/03 Fri

I think that if Spike is able to distinguish between right and wrong and choose to do right, yes, the soul is moot. But he can still do good things, if not, as you say, for the right reason.

Joss has also said that good and evil are continums. People can be very good, very evil, and in between. Demons can be good or evil too, although they don't always understand why something an act is good or evil. Take Lorne, who is quite virtuous, although not able to always distinguish between right and wrong. (Letting the people-eating demon into the hotel without telling anyone.)

Joss has great things to say in his DVD commentaries. One thing he attempts to show is that no one ever thinks they are wrong. In their mind, everyone is completely rational and does the right thing when they act. I think they do this exceedingly well with Spike.

SPIKE: (shouting) Bloody right you are! If you hadn't left me for that chaos demon, I never would have come back here! Never would have had this sodding chip in my skull! And you - (to Buffy) wouldn't be able to touch me, because this, (pointing to Buffy, then to himself) with you, is wrong. I know it. I'm not a complete idiot. "Crush"

http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/season5/transcripts/92_tran.shtml
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But this is superceded by being Love's Bitch -- Diana, 09:45:39 07/25/03 Fri

Spike takes pride in being Man enough to admit that he is love's bitch. Right and wrong aren't so easy to determine, but and here is the big but for assface :-) what would be more wrong: loving the Slayer or ignoring that love?

Spike believes that loving her is wrong (but it is ok since he is a vampire and is supposed to be messed up per "Smashed"), but he also believes that pursuing that love is right. That to me is his main motivation.

I think it is totally amazing how ME did that. They took motivation they established Season 2 and 3 in order to make Spike do what they needed him to. They were able to more fully integrate him into the Scoobies and for him to provide Buffy with an outlet for her feelings about her power.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> response -- Arethusa, 10:00:48 07/25/03 Fri

One thing he attempts to show is that no one ever thinks they are wrong.

Spike believes that loving her is wrong


I think we agree about vampires' views of right and wrong and the moral implications. But don't these two statements above contradict each other?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nah, just a bit complicated -- Diana, 10:33:28 07/25/03 Fri

Loving Buffy is wrong, but it would be more wrong to ignore his feelings. Choosing the lesser of two evils is the RIGHT thing to do. Ultimately, Spike thinks he is right to pursue Buffy. His feelings may be wrong, but pursuing her isn't.

Did that make any sense? Not doing too well with the sense making today.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> still see contradiction -- sdev, 14:30:18 07/25/03 Fri

"If Spike is acting out of good/noble motives, it makes getting the soul pretty moot."

"what would be more wrong: loving the Slayer or ignoring that love?
Spike believes that loving her is wrong (but it is ok since he is a vampire and is supposed to be messed up per "Smashed"), but he also believes that pursuing that love is right. That to me is his main motivation."

I don't understand this. If as you say Spike does not act out of good motives pre-soul, what does the next part mean-that he is doing what he believes is right but he is incorrect? Are you saying that soulless he may try to do right but is unable to distinguish what is truly right?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: still see contradiction -- Diana, 15:02:23 07/25/03 Fri

that he is doing what he believes is right but he is incorrect?

Isn't that what a villain is? I don't know of any valid standard that will say that persuing something that you feel is wrong is right. Per vamp standards, "Poor Spike. So lost. Not even I can help you now." Per human standards, this creepy, obsessive, possessive, stalker vamp love is not a good thing. Spike is choosing the lesser of two evils, in his mind, but according to any standard I know, he actually chooses the greater evil.

Soulless he wasn't trying to do what is "right," but what he thinks is right. Most creatures go by their moral compass. Spike is so gray because he doesn't. The object of his obsession becomes his moral compass. To go against this to Spike is wrong, so following it becomes "right."

That isn't how I evaluate the morality of a character. I use their own moral compass, so soulless vamps should be evil and soulled creatures should be good. Just how I do things.

To thine ownself be true. Their moral compass is part of this self every bit as much as their desires. To just ignore it, to me, is wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't understand the term 'moral compass' -- sdev, 16:42:50 07/25/03 Fri

"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

I see morality this way. Three groups, and real life and the Buffyverse has permutations of them all.

The best lack all conviction: The amoral group. The absence of caring whether it is right or wrong. In this group are vampires, other demons and assorted humans. Angel described Angelus and vampiric life as being an easy way to live because they have no conscience. In other words the see, want, take mentality (I know I messed that expression up profoundly).

The worst are full of passionate intensity: The immoral group. Here you have the terrorists, the Hitlers, Sadams and other lesser lights who wrongly believe in what they are doing. I believe Yeats was talking about Fascism here. Morality is perverted not necessarily tossed out.

The Saints: The moral group. In its purest forms certain religious figures, Christ and Moses come to mind, Ghandi, Buffy often. This group cares about morality and gets it right.

Most of the real world and ME's grey world have beings which straddle all three.

Now is Spike in the Amoral or Immoral group? If he tried to do the right thing but failed because he could not identify the good choice, had a wrongful conviction, he is immoral. If on the other hand he could have cared less about right and wrong and just went for what he wanted, then he is amoral.

I believe he moved from amoral, Season 1 through Season 5.5, to a rudimentary combination of the three, end of Season 6. This amalgam most closely resembles people. The devil is in the details, and how much of anyone is in which group determines how moral they are. What then was affected by his getting a soul? The proportions and his ability to move from the amoral to the moral, to internalize a conscience.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That isn't what Joss says, -- Diana, 17:05:05 07/25/03 Fri

and when looking at the morality of his story and his characters I tend to use his system. I am interested in the narrative flow, so I want to see what story he is constructing. I try to leave my own beliefs at the door for the most part. I don't believe in free will, morality or any of that stuff.

Vampires are not amoral, but immoral. Joss has said so repeatedly, so I will go with that.

Just me, but it makes it really hard to discuss this show when people are all approaching it from different moral systems. That is why I tend to go with Joss'.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> POV -- Arethusa, 19:15:51 07/25/03 Fri

Oh, I enjoy learning about the different moral systems of others. While Whedon's viewpoint is the reason I watch the show, others' viewpoints are the reason I visit this site.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> but how do you have a discussion -- Diana, 19:33:25 07/25/03 Fri

Without a common frame of reference? That is where most flame wars come from. We can't agree on what is love, what is good, what is redemption, etc. Without this, there is no discussion. Just a series of monologues that masquerade as a debate.

Just my opinion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pretty boring discussion if everybody agrees, dontcha think? -- ponygirl, 20:13:44 07/25/03 Fri

You never know when an opposing opinion is going to come along and rock your world, or at least help you to understand the strengths and weaknesses of your position. I think the key is having that willingness to listen and to accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

Has anyone ever in the history of the world agreed on what is love and what is good? Back in the day if someone among my friends wanted to end an argument they would ask loudly, "But what is art, really?" Then we'd all get drunk.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> :) -- Alison, 20:16:28 07/25/03 Fri

Wonderful post. You rock pg!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Alison! -- ponygirl, 20:20:19 07/25/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I do not think I am being understood -- Diana, 09:53:12 07/26/03 Sat

but that isn't a first time and I'm sure it won't be the last :-)

I have participated in two different types of formal debate. I have done Forensics in High School and I have done formal Buddhist debate (both with other students of Zen and with a few Practioners of certain Tibetan school).

In Forensics (Lincoln Douglas Debate to be specific, which I'm sure more than a handful here have engaged in) we are given a resolution. For example: Be it resolved that motives, not outcome, ought to be used to determine the morality of an action. (That was an actual topic junior year). First step is to define all the terms. That task falls to the Affirmative. Without a common frame of reference, the people aren't debating the same thing. If a term could not be agreed upon, that became the focus of the debate. Why should the judge accept my definition?

Debating in Zen is a bit different. The definitions are set and cannot be argued. The goal is like it is with Koans, to reach a point where you go "I don't know." The loser is actually the winner.

But debating with someone from a Tibetan school was a different experience. There is a story that most Buddhists know. It is true and shows how important a common frame of reference is. A very common Zen debate involves someone holding up an object and asking what it is. The purpose of this debate, as with any Zen debate, is to understand the concept of emptiness. Debate does this very well.

Some school in the US was opening a Eastern Studies department and thought it would be interesting to commemerate the occassion by holding a traditional Buddhist debate between a Zen Master and a Tibetan Lama. The two men arrived with their translators, the Zen Master wearing his austare gray robes and the Tibetan Lama wearing his flowing safron ones. The contrast was striking, but it didn't prepare the audience for what happened.

The Zen Master, being younger, was to go first. He took an orange out of his robe and asked the Lama what it was. Their translators translated and the Lama said nothing. Again the Master asked the question and again the Lama said nothing, looking at the Zen Master strangely. The Master held the orange right in the Lama's face and rather agitated asked the question again.

The Lama turned to his translator and said something. The audience quieted as they were sure some great wisdom was going to follow. The translator cleared his voice and said loudly and clearly "Doesn't he have oranges where he comes from?" Thus ended the debate.

(Tibetans tend to debate to show that they know their texts. The goal is to see who knows them best)

You can't have a debate if you aren't approaching things from the same perspective. You can debate perspective IF that is the debate. For example, you can debate what is Love. I tend to quote CS Lewis' "Four Loves" a lot for that one. You cannot debate whether Spike loves Buffy UNTIL THIS debate is had and the term is agreed on.

That is where the Flames are coming from. Rather than debate the show, perhaps a more productive and less controversial method would be to go at the terms and THEN reapproach the show with the agreed upon definition. Just saying "Well this is my perspective" is not a debate. To counter that with "Well this is MY perspective," is not a debate. It is a monologue. It can be sharing our perspectives, but it isn't a debate.

Just my perspective :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, that might be the problem. -- Arethusa, 10:57:15 07/26/03 Sat

Only sometimes do we debate. Take a look at the archives and you'll see that often we do discuss and decide upon the definition of a word before debating about that subject.

Other times someone will pull out an orange and say, "Isn't this a great orange? And someone else will say, "Sure. But I prefer blood oranges. Here's why." And then someone else will say, "Where I come from we prefer pomegranates." And they'll tell us about pomegranates. Not a debate-just an exchange of different perspectives, and how that affects how we see the show.

Both are so much fun, as long as we remember that it's not always about debating. Or pomegranates.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It is the debates that get out of hand though -- Diana, 11:27:40 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah, that might be the problem. -- Arethusa, 11:38:38 07/26/03 Sat

Only when we forget to be civil, and care more about being right than sharing with and supporting each other. I consider the people here to be my friends, and make myself remember that their opinions are just as valid and important as mine. I used to be a Troll Slayer, and several times insulted people whose opinions I didn't respect or agree with. I embarrassed myself and hurt others' feelings--and whether or not I was right became irrelevent. Nobody wants to debate with someone who condescends to or insults them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> discussions -- Arethusa, 20:50:55 07/25/03 Fri

BtVS is our common frame of reference. We don't need to hold identical values to discuss how we interpret and what we see in the show. We don't have to agree on what love, goodness etc. are. It's the exchange of ideas, the fascination of learning about and from so many different and interesting people.

You get the monologues when only one voice is heard.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It isn't a common frame of reference -- Diana, 09:58:24 07/26/03 Sat

If we don't see the show the same way, there is nothing common about it. Haven't you ever felt like the person you are talking to isn't watching the same show? I know I have. It isn't a slam, just my feelings.

To be honest, I find the discussions, such as Manwitch's, that peel away the layers of the show to be the most interesting. In those, one person says something and then another layer is peeled. That causes someone else to see something and they share and this continues. Tangents are spun off like wild.

But that isn't what this thread is. Motives v actions. That is a debate, not a layer.

Again, just my perspective.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It isn't a common frame of reference -- Arethusa, 11:24:52 07/26/03 Sat

If we don't see the show the same way, there is nothing common about it.

All people and cultures (as far as I know) deal with certain fundamental issues. Good and evil, justice and punishment, forgiveness and redemption. What makes a good parent? How do we become good people in a violent, sometimes merciless world? How do we deal with sexuality, death, fears, dreams? This is what we have in common.

Motives versus actions is fascinating, and something this site has debated a great deal. You said, "The object of his obsession becomes his moral compass. To go against this to Spike is wrong, so following it becomes "right." That isn't how I evaluate the morality of a character. I use their own moral compass, so soulless vamps should be evil and soulled creatures should be good. Just how I do things." Another point of view includes the possibility that someone bad can do good things, even when he does them for the wrong reason. Interviews with the writers back up this perspective; they have said Spike has done good things, although for the wrong reason. Just because Spike's moral compass points to "evil!" doesn't mean he can't do good things. Lorne's a demon; his moral compass points to evil, too, but he does mostly good things. Clem ate kitties, but also does mainly good acts and seems generally quite benevolent.

The problem with this debate is not simply frames of reference. It is also the graying of morality that took place over time in the Buffyverse, which Spike embodies. What was once quite clear became opaque, and Spike is the poster boy for this change in Whedon's world. Spike, whom Whedon has said retained more humanity when sired than most vampires do, has had at least two purposes-a shadow of Buffy, and an exploration of the maturation of moral development in a person.

And I love manwitch's posts too!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: POV -- slain, 09:17:16 07/26/03 Sat

While Whedon's viewpoint is the reason I watch the show, others' viewpoints are the reason I visit this site.

Although it's getting a bit crowded up there, I'd nominate this quote for the top of the board.

Okay, this is my first post since forever (Feburary?), so forgive me if I've lost the ability to put my point across!

I see there being two things here. Firstly, there's the Buffyverse, which is a fictional universe which exists on rules defined by Joss Whedon and a few other people. In which, for example, we can say that the soul is a real, almost physical entity.

Second are our own moralities and ideologies, and those of others (whether they be Nietzche, Marx, Christ, Kierkergaard or whomever) which we use to interpret the real world around us, and also apply to BtVS.

The question for me is then - if Joss Whedon has created this fixed mythological universe out of his own head, how much can we apply other doctrines, or for that matter our own personal philosophies, to it? I think the answer is that Buffyverse isn't really all that clear on itself. While it might initially present a world where good and evil are tangible forces, and redemption is intrinsically linked to a thing called a soul which can be sucked out and injected in all over the place, I think the Buffyverse is very ambiguos, about practically everything. Even the nearest thing to pure evil, the First, was intangible and mysterious.

I think Joss sometimes does lay down absolutes, in interviews at least, through a momentary desire to simplify things, and thus explain them more clearly. But I don't think the show itself bears that up; there are many conflicting forces. One of them is the idea of the moral compass (I don't know whether or not Joss first used this term, or if it's crept in through fan discussion), whereby character's morality stems from themselves, not from others. Thus Angelus, being a vampire, isn't 'evil' when he kills humans. He exists outside of human morality. But at the same time, he's fully aware of human morality, and fully aware of the concept of evil; in fact he takes pains to conform to and expand this concept.

I think the show is designed in such a way that there is no one single morality or ideology; whenever we think we have some kind of certainty, it's undermined, and all we can do is read the show from our own perspective. Joss and the other writers frequently contradict themselves in interviews, in what I think is a desire to simplify the show to get their point across more clearly. But I invariably find that when a writer, even Joss, does give a moral certainty, then the show itself doesn't bear it up.

Writers often contradict each other, or are contradicted by the actors or even their own scripts, and I think in terms of morality and motivations, there isn't supposed to a single view. If we disregard comments made about the show, and look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer alone, I don't think it's possible to come to any solid conclusions using a morality based solely on what we see on screen; we can only come to conclusions by extrapolating and infering, and working with our own personal ideologies.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent, and thanks! -- Arethusa, 11:29:39 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Escher... -- aliera, 21:05:35 07/26/03 Sat

Nice to "see" you again Slain, and

I think the show is designed in such a way that there is no one single morality or ideology; whenever we think we have some kind of certainty, it's undermined, and all we can do is read the show from our own perspective.

I agree, except that my feeling is that the undermining is quite intentional... designed to get us to question our perspective.

Although, in fairness, that could just be my perspective. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> He also says -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:52:14 07/25/03 Fri

That everyone is somewhere in the middle of the good/evil spectrum, even though people are drawn to good and vampires are drawn to evil. Here's how I interpret the morality of the Buffyverse going by what Joss has said:

Everyone is somewhere on the good/evil spectrum, most somewhere in the middle. Dead center is a thin line labelled amorality. Vampires fall on the "Evil" side of this line, and humans fall on the "Good" side of this line. However, everyone (both human and vampire) can reach the line of amorality, where they don't care about right and wrong at all. It's just that vampires can never go beyond the amoral line into the good region, and humans can never go beyond the amoral line into the evil region. So there are amoral vampires, just as there are amoral humans (however, they are the exception to the rule). Spike, for the most part, is pretty close to the amoral line, though I don't think entirely on it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel -- sdev, 11:10:41 07/26/03 Sat

Given the response to my post I may as well proceed with my take on Angelus which I refrained from to avoid provoking someone.

Angelus is not amoral. He is immoral. For instance, his plan with Acathala is a preversion of morality not just an absence. He is trying to create an entire new world order. Also his whole concept of the artistry of the kill transcends mere need to feed or stimulating challenge (Spike's reasons). This artistry is a glorification of the acts of killing and torturing in a demented moral scheme. The effort he puts in to torment and provoke his victims, for instance Buffy and Dru, screams evil not just I want, I take. Spike describes him as a vampire with a vision. Spike totally does not undestand this (see Season 2-Spike-kill the Slayer not her friends) because it is foreign to his character. This immorality is much further away from the moral mode. It is also much more dangerous and in need of control. A chip would not have affected this change from Angelus to Angel.

Spike, OTOH is into total amoral mode, the want take. He has no grand plan. He makes it up as he goes along. He is the one without the vision.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> agree on all counts. -- lynx, 16:28:02 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said. -- curious, 17:27:31 07/26/03 Sat

I think there is a crucial difference between A-morality and IM-morality. Not much to add - just agree-age re: the comparison between unsouled Spike and Angelus.

I have a feeling that S5 of AtS will have lots of contrasts like this between the souled vamps.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I think there's an important distinction to be made here -- Sophist, 08:25:55 07/25/03 Fri

When we try to take intentions into account, we have to recognize a limit to our knowledge. In judging ourselves, we can certainly know, with certainty, when we've acted with good (or bad) intent. But when it comes to others, we can never have such certainty; we can't ever access their minds. We can infer intent in others, but we can never know it.

For this reason, I tend to look only at the act itself. I can judge whether that is good or evil without worrying about intent. That also avoids getting bogged down in scholastic debates, such as trying to decide if an intent was truly selfless or if the feeling of pleasure from doing a good deed makes it ultimately selfish.

I think election refers to the select group of people (don't ask me who!) that are predestined to go to heaven. Predetermination is similar, but refers generally to the idea that everybody has a path set out, to either be "saved" or to go to hell.

This is basically correct. I guess that Sunday school paid off after all. :)

I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) pretty much all Christian sects, if you get right down to it, do not believe in good deeds as a means to salvation. Good deeds are part and parcel to living a good Christian life in that one's good deeds follow as an effect of your salvation.

This is so complicated an issue I'm not certain if I have it right, but I think I know the answer.

The issue arose historically when Luther raised the issue of justification by faith alone. What this meant, in practice, was that the Catholic sacraments were not necessary for salvation. The sacraments were known as "works".

Catholics defended the sacraments, but this left them vulnerable to Protestant charges that the Church was leaving God/Christ out of the process of salvation. The Catholic position then took advantage of the ambiguity of the term "works" to accuse Protestants of claiming that people who do evil deeds could be saved.

As I understand the position now, Catholic doctrine requires faith, good deeds, and sacraments for justification (a Catholic can correct me if I'm wrong here). Protestants, in turn, claim that justification will cause good deeds, but that good deeds do not cause justification. Protestants accept certain sacraments (which ones vary according to the denomination), but do not believe them necessary to salvation. In fact, some will not administer sacraments except to those already saved.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very close -- Diana, 08:37:03 07/25/03 Fri

As I understand the position now, Catholic doctrine requires faith, good deeds, and sacraments for justification

The sacraments are not required. As it says in the Catechism in regards to baptism, man is bound by the Sacraments, but God isn't. God can let into heaven whomever He wants. If you have all three, you will get in, but just because you don't, doesn't mean you won't.

The purpose of the Sacraments is they are tangible signs of grace that help us. It is refered to as the Economy of Salvation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think there's an important distinction to be made here -- Malandanza, 22:04:54 07/25/03 Fri

"For this reason, I tend to look only at the act itself. I can judge whether that is good or evil without worrying about intent. That also avoids getting bogged down in scholastic debates, such as trying to decide if an intent was truly selfless or if the feeling of pleasure from doing a good deed makes it ultimately selfish."

Do you draw a distinction between good/evil intent and no intent? That is, would you be more inclined to forgive an evil act precipitated accidentally than one committed with good intentions? The difference between manslaughter and either murder or a vigilante killing, for example?

Or, to return to BtVS, would you consider Willow's act of sending demons to kill Xander in Something Blue morally equivalent to Warren sending a demon to kill Buffy, or D'Hoffyrn sending demons to kill Anya? Or would Ms. Post knocking Giles out to in an effort to get the magic glove before it is destroyed be the same as Spike knocking Xander out in order escape house arrest and prove his innocence? Is Buffy torturing a vampire for information in When She Was Bad to be treated exactly as Angelus torturing Giles for information? or, perhaps, you include part of the intent in the act -- so that Buffy torturing a vampire for information to save her friends is not really the same act as Angelus torturing Giles for information on how to end the world.

In any case, I think that intentions, while not the sole means of measuring an act, certainly provide mitigating factors. As much as I have railed about Willow in the past, I don't believe that she's evil -- she sometimes has good intentions and usually has no ill intentions (or what she would consider ill intentions).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Real world v. drama -- Sophist, 09:04:49 07/26/03 Sat

The examples you gave all come from situations in which we, the viewers, have Godlike knowledge of the characters' intentions. In real life, we lack that certainty.

But yes, I do consider intent. The legal biz has just taught me to be pretty skeptical of claims that we can ever have much certainty about the true intent of another person. I didn't mean to suggest I ignore it, just to say that I'm cautious in applying it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good acts -- sdev, 15:08:16 07/25/03 Fri

I should have added that I don't really believe in selflessness. IMO all actions have a piece of self in them; that is why I see the question as- is the action motivated by positive or negative self.

As for Spike, pre-soul, I think he was caught up in the greying of the Buffyverse both the human and vampiric halves. He was heading for good and several humans- Warren and Willow- were heading for bad, even with their souls. I don't see many characters as entirely good or bad. The world, even the vampire half per ME, post Season 5.5, was not like that. Was Spike "good" prior to soul? That is not the question I would ask. To me the question is did he do good? Was he heading in the direction of redemption?

I don't feel there is any contradiction with the rules/canon of the Buffyverse to consider Spike as having chosen to do good prior to his ensoulment. Season 5.5 and on was clearly adding to the viewers knowledge and understanding of those rules and the universe that was created. The rules may be static but the viewers knowledge of them was expanding. Was it unusual, sometimes extraordinary, to choose good soulless? Yup. That was the point. Was it enough? Obviously not enough for Spike.

In terms of motivation I see progression. First Spike copies Buffy, or what he thinks she would like. This is very quid pro quo motivation- I'll do it; she'll like me. Second step, he acts out of love to help and protect her and hers. Third, he slowly begins to 'swallow the policeman,' incorporate some super ego morality into his thinking. That is the point after the AR when he decides to get his soul.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: good acts -- meritaten, 04:17:05 07/26/03 Sat

It is my understanding that Caltholics (and I truly mean no offense to anyone in this) see good works as a part of achieving salvation, rather than as merely an effect of salvation. But then, I was taught this in a Protestant seminary, so ... grain of salt. (and no, I'm not a minister.) To the best of my knowledge, the effectiveness of "good works" is one of the points over which Protestants and Catholics differ.

Based on my own conservative Christian upbringing, I would describe Spike as being "under conviction", meaning that God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, was tickling his conscience to make him realize that change was needed. This can happen (as I was taught) to both the "good" (saved) and the not-so-good (unsaved). However, I don't believe that this is what the writiers of the Buffyverse mean for us to read from the show. I believe that, in the Buffyverse, no soul equals no conscience.
[> [> Motives & Actions -- Rina, 09:16:29 07/25/03 Fri

"To us what determines whether the ACTOR is good or not are motives."


So, are you saying that if a person commit an act of evil out of good intentions, his or her actions are excused, because the intent was good?
[> [> [> Are we talking morally culpability or legally? -- Diana, 09:47:42 07/25/03 Fri

For example, murder is considered an evil act. When the act becomes out of self-defense or to protect another (or property), the morality and even legal standing of the action changes.

Legally speaking, motives tend to be key. It is the difference between Murder 1 and Manslaughter.

I will give another example, my children. Joss has said that lack of soul gives someone a very immature moral sense. My older daughter when she was 3 took her chalk and turned the beige living room rug into a chalk board. She took her dad's markers and colored on our brand new bookcases. These were evil actions that resulted in lots of scrubbing on my part (and sanding for the bookcases). However, her intention was to make pretty pictures for Mommy.

I had to teach her not to do that again, but she was not punished. In her mind she didn't do anything wrong. She had good intentions for her evil actions. Mommy would have been punishing her for making pretty pictures.

That is just how I see things. We have to teach people not to do some things and these actions have to be addressed. However they don't make the person evil any more than Spike's actions make him good.
[> [> [> You need both -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:49:56 07/25/03 Fri

You need to do good acts because of good intentions. Doing good acts for bad reasons doesn't really work, because you yourself don't care about the good of the acts and, if given the opportunity, would commit bad acts to help yourself. Meanwhile, doing bad acts for good reasons also doesn't really work, because you gotta wonder what happens when the act is out of proportion to the motive. For example, if I kill one person to save the lives of a million people, that works. However, if I kill a million people to save the life of one person, that doesn't. Doing good acts for good reasons is the only surefire way to avoid being/doing evil.
[> [> [> [> Re: You need both -- Alison, 10:07:55 07/25/03 Fri

I'm not sure that things are that simple. Take your example: it might be okay to kill one person to save millions if the victim, was say, Hitler, and the millions were his future victims. But what if the person in question were an innocent? When is it okay? Is it ever okay? Even a good action, with good intentions can ultimatly result in disaster. According to Jasmine, some of the AI Gang's most pure actions resulted in her ability to become human and wrest free will away from the populace of LA.
[> [> [> [> [> Murkiness -- Rina, 10:19:35 07/25/03 Fri

This is the reason why following a rigid set of moral codes has always bother me. What one person may consider right, another may consider wrong. Some acts caused by the worst intentions may end up causing a lot of good. Other acts caused by the best of intentions, may end up causing a lot of bad.

The idea of intention itself seem murky and I sometimes wonder if we have the right to judge. Look at Buffy in "The Gift". Was she right to refuse to kill Dawn, in order to close the portal to the demon dimension? Was she right to consider how Dawn's death would affect her, or wrong not to consider the death and destruction if the world was enveloped by a demonic dimension?

Or there is Giles' action in "Lies My Parents Told Me" Was he right to Spike's death with Wood over Spike's death, after Buffy and Spike's initial stubborness over the memory device? Or what? Did the means - namely a murder plot and deception over Buffy - really justify protecting the Scoobies and the SITs over a potentially dangerous Spike?
[> [> [> [> [> Of course it would be OK -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:10:17 07/25/03 Fri

If you allow someone to be killed, you might as well be killing them yourself. So, if put in the situation of "kill one person to save a million", my thinking would tend to view it more as "kill one person or kill a million people", in which case the morally correct choice is clearly visible.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Of course it would be OK -- Alison, 16:55:57 07/25/03 Fri

I can't agree with you on this. It's a question of personal morals, and I believe that sacrificing someone for the greater good is NEVER acceptable. Who is to decide the worth of that person? I understand that in practical terms, sometimes the choice has to be made. I just pray I am not in a position to do so...because I find the idea that a human being can be disposable completely abhorrent. Again, this comes down to your belief system, so I doubt we'll ever agree on this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I also believe that 'morally correct' is a mutant oxymoron. -- WickedBuffy, 19:25:25 07/28/03 Mon

Judging anything is entirely subjective. Regarding the sacrificing, it just is. And sometimes happens.

But just because it happens (or perhaps has to happen) it doesn't mean it's morally the correct choice. Neither are morally good on a standalone basis. Kill one person. Kill many people. Neither are more or less morally correct than the other.

A morally correct choice is in the eyes of the beholder.
[> [> Doers and Doing -- manwitch, 08:25:22 07/26/03 Sat

People are willing to say the ACTION was good, but not the ACTOR. These people really aren't concerned with the action, because what matters is the actor. To us what determines whether the ACTOR is good or not are motives.

Just how I see it. Not to say that other systems are not valid. That just isn't how I see things.

And for this debate I will quote the writers until I am blue in the fingers. Spike prior to getting a soul isn't about redemption or good/evil or anything like that. I would love to see some discussions about what Spike's story was prior to S7 that have nothing to do with redemption.


I have posted a lot on this, and I have pretty much never argued for Spike's redemption because I never thought he needed to be redeemed. Angel needs redemption. Not Spike.

I think the difference being described here, of looking either at the intent and motivation for an action to establish its morality or looking at the action itself, is best articulated not in religion, but in philosophy.

The great proponent of the view that motives of the actor are what is paramount is Immanuel Kant. The great proponent of the other view, that the act is everything, is Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche is, in fact, responding specifically and directly to Kant when he attacks, I think quite successfully, Kant's idea of the all-important actor behind the act.

Kant's thougth comes from the mid eighteenth century. This is, as I have pointed out, conincidentally the time when Liam was vamped and became Angel. Nietzsche's thought comes from the late 19th century, coincidentally the time when William was vamped and became Spike.

I have written a number of times about the Kantian nature of Angel. In Kant's moral theory, it was impossible to believe that the achievement of Happiness was the moral goal in life. Many decent people were unhappy, he noticed, and many bad people were happy. Also, he noticed that happiness itself can produce pride, selfishness and evil intent. So the attainment of happiness really was impossible. He argued instead that the goal of moral behavior was virtue, what he called the "worthiness to be happy," rather than happiness itself. To Kant what mattered then in the pursuit of virtue was the intent of the actor, not the act itself. Any act can have good or bad consequences. What was the intent of the actor? Was it virtuous? Kant phrased this in specifically grammatical terms, using the phrase "I think" from the Cogito, Kant argued that thinking, the act, necessitates the the thinker, in this case "I", just as a predicate requires a subject.

Kant felt, however, that the pursuit of virtue was a lenghty affair, one that far outlasted a single human lifetime. So Kant argued that it presuppose an immortal soul, capable of continuing this quest forever. The immortal soul, you see, becomes the actor behind the act. Kant also felt that the quest was meaningless if good was not to be at some point apportioned to the virtuous. And that presupposed "a cause equal to that effect," which is God, capable of apportioning happiness to those worthy when the time was right.

The parallels to Angel should be monumentally obvious. He has an immortal soul that intends not happiness, which he can never have in this world, but virtue, hoping for the day when the Powers That Be will reward him with the happiness he has earned.

This theory, I think, smacks of redemption in its very nature. The soul's quest for worthiness is a quest to overcome its unworthiness. This is why Angel's character is always seeking to atone, to make up for. Because the conscience is separate from the acts he has committed.

Nietzsche rejects this Kantian idea, and I have written before on the parallels between Spike and Nietzsche. Spike flat out rejects the idea of the need for a pesky soul. Spike behaves according to his own standards, his own rules. He cuts a deal with Buffy long before he has either soul or chip. He barges in on the Annointed one and does it his way.

Nietzsche argued that Kant was imprisoned by grammer in his theory. "We really must get free from the seduction of words!" he wrote. To Nietzsche, there was no doer behind the doing. There was no light, immanent behind the lightning, free to express itself or not. There was only the lightning. Life was not a story of progress towards some goal, but rather encapsulated in its highest expressions. "There is no doer behind the doing," Nietzsche wrote. "The doing is everything."

So Spike does. And he does not apologize, he does not atone, he does not seek redemption. Because for Spike the morality is complete in the act. He sees it as a childish form of irresponsibility to pretend that he could have behaved differently. "What do you expect, I'm a vampire!" or "I'm Love's Bitch, but I admit it."

And in very Nietzschean form, Spike measures himself not against the moral standards of the day, but against the worthiest of adversaries, in whom, as Nietzsche says, there is much to esteem and little to despise. Spike, unlike other vampires, we are told, seeks out slayers to better measure himself. "Don't you ever get tired of a fight you know you're going to win?"

And in being love's bitch, Spike is again not limiting himself. Not in the Nietzschean sense. "That which is done out of love," writes Nietzsche, "takes place always beyond good and evil." Spikes actions in love are their own morality. They require no other scale against which to be measured. At least not from Spike's perspective.

Now Nietzsche is known largely for his ideas of the Will to Power. And we might note that Angel's human name is Liam, and Spike's human name is "Wil" Liam. Liam with a Will, in this case, a will to power. A will to express himself.

The entire experience of the chip and its road to his ensoulment also screams Nietzsche, to the degree that anyone familiar with Nietzsche and his 20th century elaborator Foucault, would have been quite justified in suggesting as far back as mid-season four, "Oh, Spike's gonna get a soul." Because that's where the chip leads if you've read Nietzsch and Foucault.

So, I think no matter what anyone says in an interview, its asking an aweful lot of us to believe that we are not supposed to note these differences or compare these characters. Does that make Spike a good guy? No, not really. What we think of as Spike's good acts or Spike's evil acts, are really just Spike's acts. By the same token, they don't make Spike inherently evil either. They express completely what they are. No intent is required. So there. I'm agreeing with you. Spike is not about redemption or good/evil. He's just what he is. By contrast, with Angel, intent is paramount.

In terms of how we judge either of them, which the rest of this thread seems to address, well then you get into religion, with ideas like "Don't Judge."

Anyways, in answer to the original idea that started the thread, people can always stumble into good, or rather find that they were good when they didn't mean to be. Look at Han Solo, for example. Don't know whether Spike really fits that mold. What he does in Intervention is a turning point. There's no getting around that one. Love's bitch or not, unsouled Spike does the right thing.
[> [> [> Re: Doers and Doing and reading about past doings. -- aliera, 09:10:05 07/26/03 Sat

I'd be interested to see some of your past work if you could point me in the right general area in the archives. I'm currently rereading July 2001, just for fun. If you're referring to w/in the last season, I have followed what you've been doing but... I had the sense from something else you wrote this year that you might have some things farther back?
[> [> [> Wonderful post -- Sophist, 09:11:38 07/26/03 Sat

It was your original post on the Kantian and Nietzschean aspects of the two that hooked me on this Board. Thanks for that and thanks again for this. Great stuff.
[> [> [> Can this be the post that we all agree on -- Diana, 10:09:21 07/26/03 Sat

Thus the debate ends and we can move onto other things :-)

Just a suggestion. Two different characters from two completely different perspectives, which make it pretty impossible to debate them.

It is like vamps/humans/souled vamps. Vampires put forth the idea that at our core, we are evil. Humans put for the idea that at our core we are good. Souled vamps put for the idea that we are both good/evil. You can't judge any of them on only one standard. Their very natures are different.

Now what would be interesting is how Darla fits into all of this. I like Darla and would love to see her discussed more. Same with the Master. Why are Angel and Spike the only vampires discussed?
[> [> [> [> You know, I was thinking... -- manwitch, 12:06:24 07/26/03 Sat

I felt after I posted this, that with the exception of kinda of working myself around to where I realized I agreed with you that Spike was just what he was, I was pretty much retreading old ground.

But then I thought it was interesting that what seems to interest you about the moral issues, the actor and their motives, in a sense regardless of what they do, would naturally cause Angel, the incarnation of moral and ethical motivation, to be a very interesting character for you. And I thought, I tend to be interested in people who behave a particular way even when they have no motivation, no incentive for doing it. So to a degree, I would naturally find Spikey interesting. Cuz watching Buffy, you frequently have to be like, why on earth would he do that? Not that its out of character, but Spike just does what he does.

I think in a lot of ways its a very nice contrast they've set up, and I think, as I believe you do (correct me if I'm wrong), that at least within the Buffy series, both their issues are meant to enlighten us about her. Once we get into the Angel series, obviously, its another matter. There Angel is top dog.

I think the Master is pretty cool. I always thought he was kind of the ubervillain of Buffy. You know how your first love is always special? And so angel will always be special to Buffy? Well the Master seems like that in terms of fear. He'll alwyas be the first one. The one before she knew what she was, what she was capable of, before she believed in herself. That's why I loved the Wish so much. And When She was Bad. Seeing the Master just immediately puts you back in that place where its all much bigger than you are. Its like going home, no matter how old you are and how much you've accomplished, but your parents still place you in that role of dependent child. She may have killed the Master, but he has a power she'll never quite overcome. I was really hoping, after lessons, that we'd see more of him. That's the image the First Evil should have been using, if it really wanted to throw Buffy a curve. She'll always have a twinge of fear at the Master.

Darla should be discussed more. Especially given that she, like Angel and Spike, is kinda hot.

But who is really cool, and who is still out there waiting to be resolved, is my favorite vampire of them all, Drusilla. That chick is cool, funny, and just plain creepy. With Spike and Angel on the same show again, I'm hoping maybe that will be able to draw her back. What a fantastic character.
[> [> [> [> [> I like when you think -- Diana, 12:47:26 07/26/03 Sat

I think in a lot of ways its a very nice contrast they've set up, and I think, as I believe you do (correct me if I'm wrong), that at least within the Buffy series, both their issues are meant to enlighten us about her.

Now the $24,000 question is why (and yeah, I agree with you). Why does Buffy's spiritual journey start with Angel, continue with Spike and most likely will go back to Angel?

I think another angle to the Spike/Angel perspective is which is being his own man. Spike is a slave to his desires. Angel is a slave to his sense of morality. The answer to that question depends on what you see "us" as. If we are our desires, Spike is da man. If we are our conscience, than Angel is quite a guy. Both stumble, but they pick themselves up.

I think the "answer" is that we are both and we have to find a way to live according to both. Angel started out trying to be his moral center. As a vampire, his desires were quite compatible with this. As a souled vampire, he was afraid of his desires. As his show continues, he is learning how to adapt his desires so that they are compatible with his sense of right/wrong. Spike is the flip side of this. He is all desire. With the addition of the soul, which he has just felt for the first time ever, he will have to learn how to make those desires compatible with his morality.

I liked what you said about the Master. I wanted to tie this to Darla. Darla is the first vampire we see on the show. I fell in love with her. I really wanted her to appear in the final episode. Besides, she isn't just kinda hot. She and Angel/us have some of the hottest scenes in the entire Buffyverse. There is a class and grace about her that I don't think any other character came close to.

I also love Drusilla, and she is fun to watch. She isn't fleshed out enough to really dig into though.

I really look forward to seeing your spiritual analysis of Dru and Spike when we get to season 2 for Back to the Beginning.

Thank you so much for sharing and willing to be so personal.
[> [> [> Re: Doers and Doing-Questions -- sdev, 10:48:16 07/26/03 Sat

Beautifully said. I think I was trying to get at this through my discussion of Judaism which focuses on actions not intentions. Also as I said Judaism has almost no focus on redemption and an after-life.

"The entire experience of the chip and its road to his ensoulment also screams Nietzsche, to the degree that anyone familiar with Nietzsche and his 20th century elaborator Foucault, would have been quite justified in suggesting as far back as mid-season four, "Oh, Spike's gonna get a soul." Because that's where the chip leads if you've read Nietzsch and Foucault."

Could you elaborate on this. How is this the Will to Power?

"What he does in Intervention is a turning point. There's no getting around that one. Love's bitch or not, unsouled Spike does the right thing."

Also, where does right and wrong fit in?
[> [> [> [> The Chip and its path to the Soul -- manwitch, 13:45:41 07/26/03 Sat

In Geneaology of Morals, Nietzsche discusses the origins of morality. Ultimately he argues that in order for people to live together in peacable communities, and in order for them to be able to make promises to each other, they needed to tame themselves. In order to make promises, people needed to know that a particular cause could produce a particular effect. So a certain degree of uniformity was required. People had to become calculable. This was made possible through punishment. Nietszche refers to pain as the greatest aid to mnemonics. So through the pain of punishment, people came to recognize certain boundaries to behavior that allowed them to live together in communities. But the result of this was a bottling of expression. Violent tendencies that had been expressed outwardly, now needed to be turned inward. "Thus it was that man first developed what would later be called his soul."

Nietzsche distinguishes however between a master morality and a slave morality. This soul belongs to the slave morality. It is response. It sees what it doesn't have and cannot attain and labels it as bad, and seeing itself in opposition to what is bad it labels itself good. But it has no internal drive, no internal source. It is a creation, a fiction that actively creates memories and forgets others in order to form "life-enhancing" illusions that will allow the person to live.

The Master morality, by contrast, is inner directed. It is good because it is so, because it is creative. The Master morality requires not this soul. Its morality is in its expression. It is neither good nor evil, but simply an expression of power.

Foucault, many years later, elaborated on Nietzsche's Geneaology of Morals in the book Discipline and Punish. (Surveiller et Punir for you French folks out there). Its worth a read, and has been extremely influential in the United States, particularly in the history of institutions. Foucault very explicitly called his work a "geneaology of the modern soul," and wrote that this soul "is the prison of the body." The subtitle of Foucault's book is "The Birth of the Prison," and the monograph recounts the rise of the prison and of a form of punishment that acts not on the body, as the old forms of torture did, but on something else, something intangible, but no less real. Through discipline, punishment, an art of correct training, people learn to exercise control over themselves. But this isn't simply self-discipline. This is an extension of the police power, of the state power that dominates us into our very hearts. We monitor ourselves so that the police don't have to. One of the main contributors to this process is Jeremy Bentham's panopticon, a prison design in which the prisoner must always assume they are being watched, even though they may not be. It is alwyas possible that they are being seen. The panopticon forces the self-regulation on the prisoner. And this self-regulation creates a memory of acceptable and proscripted acts. It creates an identity based on what is and is not permitted. This identity leaves the prison with the prisoner. The self-surveillance does not stop simply because the panopticon is no longer at hand. And this self-surveillance is the modern soul, a soul that limits and impoverishes experience, a soul that imprisons the body.

Now according to Foucault, the prison is not the only place where this happens. Schools, hospitals, the military, any institution that practices upon us as objects, to correct our movements, to create timetables for our whereabouts, to create charts and records of who we are and what we have done, assists in the creation of this modern soul.

So if we turn our attention to Spike, we see that in Season 2 and 3, and even into the flahsbacks of Fool For Love Spike embodied the Master morality. He expresses himself. Measures himself not against what he hates and cannot attain, but against the worthiest of adversaries. He does it his way, as he sings on his departure from Sunnydale. He will go against the rules of vampires if it suits his purposes, against the rules of humans if it suits his purposes. He will make a deal with Buffy against vampires to save the world if its what his internal direction tells him to do. He will not apologize, he will not atone. He simply expresses his power.

But in Season 4 Spike is caught and imprisoned by the Initiative, which seems to be a mix of school, the military, a hospital, and a prison. All of the instutions of Foucault's discipline. And they insert in Spike's head the means of self-surveillance, so that even when he leaves the Initiative, spike will bring that surveillance with him. And it acts on him through punishment, through the greatest aid to mnemonics. Spike is forced to create a new identity for himself, in which new types of actions are proscribed. Committing those actions, for whatever intent, causes pain and dare we say guilt, as we see in SR. The ambiguity of Spike's goal in submitting to the trials in Grave is intentional. Because by that point, for all practical purposes, the chip has already become his soul.

But this modern soul is limiting. It keeps the ensouled under thumb. It imprisons them. And so we naturally see Spike afterwards, at the start of Season 7, diminished, babling in tongues, under the thumb of the First Evil, living over and therefore being associated with the Hellmouth, which his ensouled blood will ultimately open. We see Spike ensouled committing acts of recidivism which shows clearly that he does not share the enobling soul of Angel, the soul that pursues worthiness. He has a soul that he must overcome. He must find again his internal direction.

And he ultimately does that with Buffy, in that beautiful scene in the empty house.

But I think the minute it was clear Spike was being panopticonned, it was a safe bet that a soul would eventually follow, and that it wouldn't be an improvement.
[> [> [> [> right and wrong -- manwitch, 13:52:45 07/26/03 Sat

"Also, where does right and wrong fit in?"

Well, I guess technically it doesn't. Spike once again just did what he did, and if I see that as good or right, that's my business, I suppose.

But how can you not want Buffy to kiss him after what he did? In many ways he's been as offensive and horrible in Intervention as in any episode ever. He created a Buffy sex toy (which would just be a huge seller in the marketplace, by the way).

But as an evil vampire, who is being tortured and is about to be killed, with Buffy having no knowledge of the sacrifice he is making, Spike refuses to give in. He supports Buffy, he insults Glory, and he keeps Dawn's secret. When there is no incentive for him to do so.

That's why I think Buffy recognizes that moment as a turning point. She doesn't pay him anymore after that, she doesn't threaten him. She counts on him. Quite a transformation.
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the responses-mulling -- sdev, 20:23:46 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Agree even technically -- sdev, 21:10:24 07/27/03 Sun

"But how can you not want Buffy to kiss him after what he did?"

"Quite a transformation."

Agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I can only accept so far the model you gave. Does a character have to be wholly in one mold or another? Is anyone ever? I posted later my feeling that this changed to a redemption story post-SR. But thanks again for your insights.
[> [> [> Can I say again how much I liked this -- sdev, 11:12:06 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> Appreciation, and some questions -- Rahael, 12:13:08 07/26/03 Sat

I loved this the first time you brought it here, and I think it is a startling and satisfying prism.

However, I think the last couple of seasons of Angel have really moved on to profoundly question the model that Angel operated on in BtVS. This is the reason why that I have subsequently found the character far more fascinating than I ever did when he was on BtVS. Yes, the need for redemption is strong in Angel, but there's a greater tension within now. THe idea of a reward, whether that this is viable, or even desirable. The idea of a benign power guiding him. In fact, Angel is operating in uncharted waters, never sure of what the 'right' decision is. Never sure where he stands. At the end of S4, all he wants is moral agency, even if that means the wrong choice, the stupid choice. His grand ambitions have been stripped away, season by season. All that is left now, is the battle against loneliness, against isolation in a universe that is darker and sadder than anything we have seen before.

I do not know enough about Kant to say whether this still fits, so firstly, would you agree that there has been some change in Angel's journey, and if so, does it still fit the model you are positing?
[> [> [> [> answers and some rambles -- manwitch, 12:43:38 07/26/03 Sat

Truth be told, I always post about the Angel that was on Buffy. Even now, even when Angel shows up in Season 7, after four years of his own show, when he's on Buffy he's the Angel of Buffy.

The Angel of Angel the Series is a different creature. Certainly its origins are in the Kantian model I described, but that is legacy data, and now its way way way beyond that. Much more existential. Not that it might not ultimately be resolved in Kantian terms. I think you have hit on the questions that do interest me. Are there Powers that Be? What is our relationship to them? How do we know? Will we ever be absolved? Is that the goal? Does it matter? Can we ever do enough? And always always always, how can we know? In a way, Angel is becoming more Neitzschean in that his life is becoming a form of expression, rather than a goal directed project.

I would love to see Angel lose it as Angel. The most captivating part of the Connor saga was the despairing sadness of Wesleys lack of confidence, and Angel's, not Angelus's, murderous rage in response. I think the show is at its most interesting when the lines between Angel and Angelus are blurred or crossed. When Angelus behaves like Angel, or Angel releases an aspect of Angelus. When we see it acknowledged that they are both him. One is not an infection of the other.

I confess, and this is not meant to start anything, that I have always loved Buffy and been deeply and personally moved by her story in a way that I have not been with Angel. I love Angel on Buffy, but on his own series, while I do enjoy the series and think its one of the best on the air, I seem to lack something that would cause it to resonate. The fault is my own, I'm sure, and I in no way mean to suggest the series is less than Buffy was. So as a general rule, I stay out of posts about Angel the series. So when I'm talking about Angel, it is almost always the Angel the is a role in Buffy's story.

I liked Kate. I liked that Angel went into her house without being invited to do something good. Whatever happened with that? The whole Holtz Connor saga just didn't resonate with me. I am intrigued now at the idea of Angel having Wolfram and Hart at his disposal. And I would think it was kick ass if they made Fred a Slayer. Which I'm sure they won't. But surely they'll come across some in LA? But anyways, will the new power at Angel's disposal be a corrupting one? I'm sure they have more interesting ideas than that in store for us, but the subtleties of Angel's psychological position right now escape me.

I guess I should reread TCH.
[> [> [> [> [> Maybe the board should -- Diana, 13:27:55 07/26/03 Sat

Think of some posts, like TCH's, that are good introductions/refreshers to Angel, since there are plenty of people that either have never watched the series or didn't follow it. Then we could post a list of links that will take someone to these posts.

A lot of people still think of Angel as they saw him on Buffy. His character was consistant from Graduation Day to City of, but he has also grown in incredible ways since then. The Angel that Joss wrote in "Chosen" was important. I didn't see anyone discuss what Angel was saying in terms of his own growth.

As for what happened to Kate, she is on LA and Order now so that story was completely dropped. It was a pity. It was a great story. It would have been interesting to see how she fit with the Darla-Lilah-Cordy parallel the next season or was she just part of Angel-Lindsey-Kate and they would have written her out any way.

Angel being corrupted next season isn't nearly as interesting to me as what rationale he comes up with to justify what he is doing/did in "Home". Then again, I'm into motives :-)
[> [> [> [> [> More rambling in response -- Rahael, 13:28:51 07/26/03 Sat

When I watch BtVS, I'm rarely interested in the villains, or at least that used to be the case from S1-5. I was always focused on the 'good', because they resonated so much. The monster of the week/seaon was pretty much background to me to what was being told about the main characters. Really, I was focused on Buffy, Cordelia and Giles. Occasionally, I would think about Xander, Willor, Jenny et al, but they didn't really move me.

So Spike? Angelus? Dru? Darla? I really didn't pay that much attention and if you had told me that there were people who were fascinated with them (I wasn't online at all) I would have been astonished.

It was AtS S3 that changed it all for me. I borrowed the tapes from Yaby, and watched it all in one weekend, and it made my jaw drop. It made me go back and seriously re-assess S2, which was spoiled for me by Darla, a character that I hadn't cared for. Second time around, I found it terribly affecting: "God doesn't want you..But I still do!"

When I re-set Angel as the creature rejected by God, AtS grew and grew till it filled my viewing horizons. I think I found the Holtz/Connor storyline to be perhaps the most gripping storyline that ME has ever produced. Perhaps it is because I am affected by storylines that talk about parent and child, about abandonment, loss, sadness, about pain that arises from the tension of wanting to belong, and wanting to be rejected.

I guess, what I like about AtS is its edginess. The razor sharp lines it's characters walk. The fact that even though characters move between being beige and noir, the real story is that they are all versions of truly lost people, who chance to meet up at this weird intersection. LA is no home, no real sanctuary, which is underlined by the fact that Angel's home keeps being blown apart with regularity - he's always moving.

Perhaps, as a viewer, I feel more comfortable with a place where no one belongs than in a place where a definite group have a definite centre.

I have often thought about why BtVS started palling for me. Every time I think about it, I come up with a new reason! Maybe the most honest one is that AtS made me grow indifferent, just as, a long time ago, BtVS made me stop watching other tv shows. I was unused to the idea that our lead character could be consistently subverted, sometimes necessarily, sometimes, undeservedly. I realised that I liked the compromised hero.

It's still inexplicable though. I had this mad crush on Buffy the character for years and years. Where and why did it all disappear?

I agree with the comments you made elsewhere - Angel is much more interesting when he and Angelus start leeching. It's yet another subversion and what I am referring to when I talk about walking fine lines. Say, rather than good and bad being definite switches - on/off. On AtS, a character's good actions are always investigated and questioned, (also, bad ones too), and in fact, actions are very much not one or the other. Freeing Billy, Cordelia's choices in Birthday and Tomorrow. Everything Wesley does from mid S3. Darla. Connor. Noir Angel. Not only is intention murky, but even if we are aware of them, we can expect that even seemingly good choices will come back to bite the character in the ass.

Plus it's much easier to discuss if everyone accepts that their favoured character can act like a complete ass on occasion while remaining compelling. Or maybe I haven't ventured far enough into the AtS fandom to be sadly disillusioned about this.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The Fallen Cast of Characters -- Diana, 13:46:34 07/26/03 Sat

I love how everyone on Angel was once lost. Angel doesn't know how to be anything other than a monster. Cordy didn't know how to be anything other than Queen C. Wesley's rogue demon hunter was just too funny. Gunn knew nothing other than his crew. Lorne didn't fit on Pylea because he heard music in his head, but didn't know what it was. Connor didn't know how to be anything other than what Holtz raised him to be. Faith never really knew love or understanding.

This is what causes all their downfalls. They just don't know any better, so they fall back into old patterns. Holtz was so tragic because he did. We really watched the decline of a good man.

Over on Buffy, kids are growing up. They are learning what they are. They are Tabula Rasas filling up. What happens when the Tabula isn't so Rasa? The answer--mind goes from being Giles to being Wesley, heart goes from being Xander to being Fred, spirit goes from being Willow to being Gunn.

The blurr between Angel and Angelus is so gripping for me because it is Angel falling back into the only thing he knows. The past is a vicious mistress. That is why a season about free will was so important. That is how we overcome our pasts, using our free will. Next season we will get can we really do this? Will our characters fall back into old patterns or manage to use their free will to find their ways?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Fallen Cast of Characters -- manwitch, 14:25:53 07/26/03 Sat

Thank you both for some very beautiful and enriching posts. When I read stuff like this, I do get this twinge of excitement for Angel. And I've certainly spent far less time thinking about Angel than I have Buffy.

As I'm sure many on this board can understand, life is just freakishly busy. I work ten to twelve hour days and have a three to four hour commute. Then I have life to deal with and address. 6 years ago I made a commitment to myself that I would NEVER miss Buffy. And until Bring on the Night, I never did. That night my wife wanted to hit the grocery store before we went home, and I trusted my VCR. What a mistake.

Anyways, I would have meetings and stuff scheduled for Tuesday nights, or work trips to other cities, and I would just say, "Sorry, I can't make it." When asked why not, which I really felt was nobody's business, I would say, "Its an all-new Buffy on Tuesday." And that would pretty effectively end the interrogation. I guess they figured they weren't gonna get an honest answer. The meeting or trip would get rescheduled.

But I did not make the same commitment to Angel, just because, well, something has to give sometimes. So I missed some episodes. And then they started moving it around, so I never knew when it was on. Then I moved to Connecticut and the friggin UCONN men kept pre-empting it. So I have never been able to plug my life into it as completely as I was able to do with Buffy. Just the way the ball bounced.

But posts like yours do make me look longingly at it.

I used to watch X-files religiously. Loved it in the early years. Then it began to falter and trip over itself. But I found Xena, which was a real hoot. (BTW, I think maybe Gabs was a Slayer, or maybe a Guardian. I wonder how Buffy woulda fared against her with the quarter-staff.) Then I found Buffy, and have been hooked ever since. Unlike any other show, and I realize not everyone agrees with me on this, Buffy didn't collapse on itself. It didn't out plot itself, it never lost its way. I know many are dissatisfied with Season 7. But I think even part of that dissatisfaction comes from the fact that it stayed a good show. It was never just obvious that it was going on inertia, as happened with X-files.

Now I don't really know what to watch. I guess its Angel. The only other show that has me even remotely interested is Joan of Arcadia, which I know nothing about other than the obvious premise in the title. But I think its a network show, and network shows tend not to grab me.

Could I ramble anymore about meaningless and trivial stuff?

Thankfully, the answer is no. Thanks again to both of you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Dissatisfaction of season 7 -- Diana, 05:15:26 07/27/03 Sun

You have written rather eloquently about the Chakras. What you left out of that is how many people ever ascend to the 6th or 7th. My major criticism of 6 is that I don't think enough of the writers were familiar with what was going on. For season 7, I'm not sure any one at ME has been all the way up to Formless. Sometimes I am not sure about not being sure about that :-)

I have decided to stay out of discussions about season 7 because IMO they are attempts to give form back to the formless and this is almost sacreligious to me. I think a lot of the dissastisfaction of seaon 7 comes from not being able to grab a hold of something, but to me that is the whole point. The First was non-corporal for a reason.

As for Angel next season, I look forward to seeing your impressions. Joss said "The theme of this season is corruption because they've taken over Wolfram and Hart. The theme is can we do good in an evil world or will we just become tainted by it?" I could see why this would be an area that Joss would want to explore. It is easy to stay good when everything you touch turns to gold (like Buffy or Angel). What happens when this doesn't happen (like say what happened to Firefly)? The temptation to sell out is great.

We live in an evil world. How do we maintain our goodness in the face of that? How do you go placidly among the noise and haste?

I also look forward to Joan of Arcadia, but I am a nut when it comes to Jeanne. I even named my daughter after her (the other one is named after Mary Magdalene and Theresa of Avila). There is also Greenwalt's new show (same time slot as Angel though), Marti's, and Tim's. Not even my love for Jane can get me to watch Gilmore Girls, though.

Next season, we will get the Faith spin-off. Joss made suggestions about what to do with the extra hour people have with Buffy no longer on the air. HAH!! Lose one show and I have to pick up several.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ahh yes -- Rahael, 15:06:32 07/26/03 Sat

That seems to be an important point to make, now that we have a Connor who doesn't remember his past life...., and a whole set of characters who don't remember him.
[> [> [> Lighting a candle at my manwitch shrine! -- ponygirl, 15:07:46 07/26/03 Sat

[> [> [> Kinda disagree -- Caroline, 15:52:01 07/26/03 Sat

Manwitch, I hate to disagree with you but I do. I don't disagree with your categorization of Angel and Spike and Kantian and Nietzschean heros, but rather with the capacity of Kant and Nietzsche's views to have any kind of explanatory power for the basic psychological question of 'Why did this person do that?' in a scientifically acceptable way. Kantian behaviour is essentially purposive (striving towards goals) and smacks far too much of voluntarism. Existentialism makes far too great a leap from self-knowledge to self-creation. The theory that we can choose our being at any or every moment is subjective to the extreme. There is a conflation here of cognition and purposefulness. In my view, depth psychology (Freud, Jung, Klein etc stripped of the teleological terminology, something that is very hard to get away from!) provides one of the few accounts of behaviour that is deterministic, that provides an explanation and origin of motivation and one that avoids the teleology and voluntarism of many of the moral philosophers (including Foucault). I can't get behind anything that has any freedom from causality, that explains something by its purpose then its cause. Freedom from causality is an illusion. Why do I twiddle my thumbs? Because I have a thumb-twiddling instinct? How do I know I have a thumb-twiddling instinct? Because I twiddle my thumbs.

Addressing the issue of moral behaviour, if one says that one does something because it is 'good' or 'right' or 'virtuous' etc this is not a description of behaviour, it is a prescription (I'm indebted to Prof. Maze for this phrase!). They are not description of causal behaviour - they fall into the fallacy of constitutive relations, the fallacy of saying a thing's relations can be found intrinsic to the thing itself. What motivates moral behaviour is the interaction of instinctual drives that are physiologically based with interactions with the environment, particularly with early care-givers. The desire for affection and the fear of punishment (instincts put into opposition to each other!) thus establish the concept or 'right' and 'wrong' and what motivates the continuation of moral behaviour is the fear of punishment, fears that are made largely unconscious through repression in the normal adult. I don't mean to make behaviour sound horrible, merely to acknowledge that all things that we call beautiful and ugly are within all of us, as is everything violent and peaceful, right and wrong, good and bad. But this kind of causality is essential for explanation, for explanatory power. Existentialism comes to nothing because it says that a self creates itself from nothing and still consists of nothing. Purposiveness in general is not useful because it defines motive forces by their goals rather than their sources. (Behaviourism is just as bad because it cannot tell us why its empty organism does one thing rather than another!).

Because I look at behaviour from this rather specific psychological viewpoint, I have have little need to judge the morality of these characters. I look for possible sources and causes of behaviour or an action. I agree with Sophist that intent is a bad place to look - purposiveness really doesn't explain anything. That makes it hard for lawyers and critics. But I think it provides a useful framework for understanding the motivation of characters. Angel feels that he needs redemption in a spiritual sense - this appears to me to spring from superego issues associated with his father and family that remain psychological dynamic for him. In flashback episodes we certainly see the opposition between the desire for affection and fear of punishment evident in Angel's relationship with his father. Spike does not feel the need for redemption in a spiritual sense because he doesn't have these issues. Spike's issues have to do with dependence on mother and the ensuing love/hate entanglement etc (see archives for my views on Spike's psychology). This creates a different order of problems that require different resolution.

Now I hope that people can see why I don't feel the need to denigrate Spike, Angel or any other character. I find it difficult to judge and say one is good and the other is bad. They have both performed actions society would recognize as good and bad, they have both been what society would recognize as good and bad people at different times. But in their shows, they have been bestowed with a complex characterization that gives each character a logical non-teleological motivation for behaviour that makes observe-y-ness possible. And for me, that means that judge-y-ness is needless.
[> [> [> [> WHAT?! You disagree?! WITH ME?! -- manwitch, 17:33:49 07/26/03 Sat

Joking, of course.

"What motivates moral behaviour is the interaction of instinctual drives that are physiologically based with interactions with the environment, particularly with early care-givers."

I may be misunderstanding you, but I think I was talking about something that is antecedent to this. In this quote from you above, a definition of the behavior as moral has already been accepted secretly behind the scenes. My point was less a scientific explanation of why they did a particular thing than a suggestion about how they come to understand the morality of the behavior, whatever it is. So yes, I am referring exactly to the prescriptive aspect of it.

Although, even there, the two diverge. Angel's prescription requires a certain intent behind the act, whatever it is. Spike's does not. The morality is simply in its expression.

I do not, and won't, believe in moral absolutes, in any form of moral standards that transcends the people who cling to them. That's not to say that I think anything goes. But our moral standards are ours, not Gods, not the universe's. Independent of us, I do not see how our moral standards continue to hold sway.


"Why do I twiddle my thumbs? Because I have a thumb-twiddling instinct? How do I know I have a thumb-twiddling instinct? Because I twiddle my thumbs."

This goes to epistemology, which is a different place then where it started. The proper follow up question should have been, "Why do I have a thumb twiddling instinct?"

The postmodernists would ask, what can we say about someone who requires a thumbtwiddling instinct to explain this behavior? Requiring not only that thumbtwiddling be explicable, but that there be behind the person and the behavior, an "instinct" independent of them that is the "necessary cause."

I personally tend to lean towards Nietzsche because he values the experience itself over meaning of it. Once we start poking around in meaning, we have already separated ourselves from the experience. Nietzsche recognizes that any act, any experience, is devoid of causality. It is what it is, timeless, without historicity, without explanation. When we explain it, we create a fiction that keeps us removed from the moment. Does it help us? Certainly. But explaining a behavior is not the same as the behavior itself.

I'm not saying that cause and effect don't exist, or that there is no historicity. I'm saying they are secondary to experience. They come after. Like music theory. the music is what it is, you can analyze it all you want after.

But I am curious. I see what you are saying about the characters having backgrounds that explain their behaviors without resort to teleological explanations. But what do you think Angel thinks? Do you think his intentions are important to him in defining the morality of his behavior? What about Spike? Do you think he gives his intentions the same weight? Does he think about them at all?

What do you think a soul is? Does it perform any function in this context? Are Angel's and Spike's the same? Is all the talk of souls simply superfluous?

Please disagree with me all you want and feel great about it. There is little that I enjoy about this board more than seeing your name on it, and ingesting whatever it is you offer. When its in response to me, I am particularly excited. I am a newborn child compared to you on the subject of psychology. I know Freud only from people who claim to have beaten him up after school, and I know Jung only as a parrot of Joseph Campbell. (That was joke). I am always eager to learn from anything you have to say. so I hope you won't think my questions above are merely rhetorical.
[> [> [> [> [> Some more non-flamey Spike/Angel stuff -- Diana, 04:54:29 07/27/03 Sun

I know these questions were addressed to Caroline, but I would like to give my answers.

The postmodernists would ask, what can we say about someone who requires a thumbtwiddling instinct to explain this behavior? Requiring not only that thumbtwiddling be explicable, but that there be behind the person and the behavior, an "instinct" independent of them that is the "necessary cause."

Angelus doesn't give a rat's fig about his motivation either. I am not quite so obsessed about it any more (my first original universe is even lacking motivation in determining morality). Why? Because neither Angelus or I want to change. Angel sure does.

The foundation for Buddhism is Iddapaccayata. This is a nice big word that means this/that conditionality. 1. When this is, that is. 2. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. 3. When this isn't, that isn't. 4. From the stopping of this, comes the stopping of that. This is the foundation of the Four Noble Truths. The purpose of the Four Noble Truths is to stop Duhkha, which tends to get translated as suffering or unsatisfactoriness. In order to stop this, the cause must be understood.

Angel, not Angelus or Spike, don't want to be that monster any more. In order to do this, he has to change. In order to change, he has to understand why he is the way he is. Once he does this, then he can "fix" what's wrong. Angel isn't trying to make "Amends" any more. As he tells Jasmine, he is working on becoming human. This isn't saying that he is trying to claim the prize that the Scroll of Aberjian mentions. He is actually working on not being the monster.

The ultimate "goal" of Buddhism is the state of Zen in which we so live in the moment, that "I" disappears. This would sound like Spike would be the character that "gets" it, since he is the one that lives in the moment, but to me his denial is a bit deeper than Angel's. "I may be love's bitch..." as soon as he label's himself love's bitch, he is no longer in the moment. The denial is deeper, because he thinks he still is. As long as there are motivations, better to be aware of them. It is when we get to a point where we don't have motivation, rather than we just aren't aware of them, that we reach that state of Zen.

I'm not saying that cause and effect don't exist, or that there is no historicity. I'm saying they are secondary to experience. They come after. Like music theory. the music is what it is, you can analyze it all you want after.

Depends on what experience you are looking at. When I analyze the show, it comes secondary to the show, but it precedes my own writing. The purpose of understanding our motivations isn't to change past actions. That cannot be done. Angel can NEVER make amends. The purpose of understanding our motivations is to affect the present and future.

Do you think his intentions are important to him in defining the morality of his behavior?

They are so important that after he decides to do something, he tends to come up with justifications for it. In "Amends," he doesn't want to hurt Buffy so he is going to kill himself. Standing up there on that hill looking down on Sunnydale, he goes deeper and discovers that he just can't become that monster again. In "IWRY" he had time turned back to save Buffy. The next episode this expands to "We don't belong to ourselves. We belong to the world fighting." In "Reprise" Angel as such a moment of dispair, that he wants to lose his soul. When he doesn't, it leads to his epiphany. I look forward to how Angel justifies to himself what he did in "Home."

Angel's intent teach him about himself and greatly affect how he acts in the future. Angel's morality is important in that it allows him to see that he is more than the monster. It shows him what it means to be human.

What about Spike? Do you think he gives his intentions the same weight? Does he think about them at all?

Spike care nothing for morality and doesn't think of his actions/intentions in that light. However, he does think of his intentions when it comes to how others view him. He is upset that Dru breaks up with him because of what he does in "Becoming" because he did it all for her. Why he let Glory torture him was very important to him. On the other hand, he wants the Scoobies to just ignore his motives and just concentrate on the good he does. Spike looks at things whichever way makes Spike look best.

What do you think a soul is? Does it perform any function in this context? Are Angel's and Spike's the same? Is all the talk of souls simply superfluous?

Honestly, it is whatever the writers need it to be. Originally it was just a switch to explain Angel to Angelus. More recently it gives someone a more mature sense of morality. I have a feeling next season, what the soul is will have to be dealt with a bit more. Wesley asks in "Home," "What are the odds the humans would be the most corruptible?" In a season about corruption, they will have to discuss why someone is corruptible.

As for Spike's soul, since he didn't feel it until "Chosen" what can we really say about it? Next season is another story.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: WHAT?! You disagree?! WITH ME?! -- Caroline, 19:04:38 07/27/03 Sun

In a sense, I don't disagree with your points about how different Spike and Angel are as heros or characters. I do agree with you there. I just think that the parallels you draw would have more validity if they were based less teleologically. I was most likely a bit more hard-line about my point to get it across, but I think it still holds, whether one is talking about causes of behaviour or experiencing it and then interpreting that experience. This is also something that has been lingering in my brain for quite a while and I brought it up in response to you because I really respect your views and was interested to see where an exchange of views would go. Let's see if I can make the argument.

Caroline:
What motivates moral behaviour is the interaction of instinctual drives that are physiologically based with interactions with the environment, particularly with early care-givers.

manwitch:
I may be misunderstanding you, but I think I was talking about something that is antecedent to this. In this quote from you above, a definition of the behavior as moral has already been accepted secretly behind the scenes. My point was less a scientific explanation of why they did a particular thing than a suggestion about how they come to understand the morality of the behavior, whatever it is. So yes, I am referring exactly to the prescriptive aspect of it.

Although, even there, the two diverge. Angel's prescription requires a certain intent behind the act, whatever it is. Spike's does not. The morality is simply in its expression.

Perhaps it was I who misunderstood you. But you are describing particular actions(understanding one's behaviour, intent, not having intent) and then defining them in a circular way. Let's take intent. What is it? I don't really know because I cannot find any intrinsic properties for it. We cannot define intentions by saying that they somehow exist independently, without making reference to direction-towards-an-object. What is the nature of the mental state of intention? The only thing that we can say is the intending of it. And since that is not separate from the intention itself, we are back to the fallacy of constitutive relations.

I don't disagree with your views on moral standards and I'm not arguing for not having moral standards. I am merely arguing for a non-purposive and action-driven explanation of the motivation of behaviour.

The point I made about the thumb-twiddling instinct was merely to illustrate the point about the necessity for an explanation of behaviour that is based in non-circular terms. I don't agree with you that the proper question is 'Why do I have a thumb-twiddling instinct', at least not in a psychological sense. The proper question is to ensure that the variables that we use as explanators of behaviour are non-circular. I'm thinking here of Nietzsche's 'will-to-power' and all sorts of tautologies like that.

The postmodernists would ask, what can we say about someone who requires a thumbtwiddling instinct to explain this behavior? Requiring not only that thumbtwiddling be explicable, but that there be behind the person and the behavior, an "instinct" independent of them that is the "necessary cause."

I'm not sure what you are saying here given that I have said that the question of why one has a thumb-twiddling instinct is not where I was going with that line of thought. As for what the post-modernists would say, I have to shake my head. The existential 'theory' of behaviour has always been an button of mine and my contention is that they don't have one! I'm really not getting my point across very well about requiring a deterministic theory of motivation, one that has a non-circular explanator of behaviour. My whole point is that instinctual drives (eating, drinking, sleeping, copulating, self-preservation etc), are endogenous to the individual. Those drives are shaped by interaction with the environment and those stimuli then help to shape the psyche - its structure and organization. The big problem that I have with existentialism is that while existentialism can speak rather resonantly about the trials of existence, it cannot generate a useful theory for the explanation of behaviour. Existentialism sees the self as some kind of empty box, not composed of anything yet it insists that the self contains some principle of agency whose sole object is to assert that agency. (Experience precedes essence). What is created out of that expression of agency is not the self. I can't find that logical - we don't know anything about the self that creates or what is then creates. What is it that mediates self-knowledge to self-creation? What is it that even mediates experience and self-knowledge? What is even more confusing is that existentialism then goes on to speak of mental entities, even when it has rejected their existence. And our increasing knowledge about the brain and its workings in the neurosciences goes against the traditional conception of the self as indivisible or an empty box as the existentialists would have it.

I personally tend to lean towards Nietzsche because he values the experience itself over meaning of it. Once we start poking around in meaning, we have already separated ourselves from the experience. Nietzsche recognizes that any act, any experience, is devoid of causality. It is what it is, timeless, without historicity, without explanation. When we explain it, we create a fiction that keeps us removed from the moment. Does it help us? Certainly. But explaining a behavior is not the same as the behavior itself.

I'm not saying that cause and effect don't exist, or that there is no historicity. I'm saying they are secondary to experience. They come after. Like music theory. the music is what it is, you can analyze it all you want after.

In term of the causality of behaviour, I don't understand this entire passage. In logical terms, I cannot account for an action that is without cause. Furthermore, that 'cause' must be non-teleological to have some status. More hardline theorists of behaviour would say that this experience that you are talking about is an illusion. My own bias is that I am aware in my private life of the feeling of deliberating, choosing, deciding, being selfish and many other motives defined by their aims. Where I agree with the more hardline theorists is that this falls into the fallacy of constitutive relations - I have to think that there is a scientifically acceptable explanation for that behaviour. But I am also prepared to say that these so-called illusions when placed in a scientifically acceptable interpretation are not actually illusions, they are rationale that we do not yet understand in a logical, deterministic way. I guess that this then invalidates the notion of 'freedom of action' because every event must be caused rather than just sprung into being from nothing.

I don't mean to imply here by my remarks that I think that the theory of behaviour based on instinctual drives is in any way complete. There are many gaps in the theory and its proponents in dynamic depth psychologies do sometimes express themselves in rather unfortunately teleological language. There have also been many modifications made to the original theory as proposed by Freud, partly due to these reasons. But there is also an increasing amount of data in the neurosciences, particularly in the areas of sexuality (hormones etc) that are consistent with the theory as proposed. No doubt there will be future advances and modifications, which I eagerly await.

But I am curious. I see what you are saying about the characters having backgrounds that explain their behaviors without resort to teleological explanations. But what do you think Angel thinks? Do you think his intentions are important to him in defining the morality of his behavior? What about Spike? Do you think he gives his intentions the same weight? Does he think about them at all?

Since I have spent all this time arguing that any purposive explanation of behaviour is logically unacceptable, then I cannot address these points. And since intention is another teleological term, we don't know how a behaviour comes about, we only know its goal and that is not logically coherent. As for moral behaviour, that is merely the voice of the repressing agency, and Angel and Spike have different issues that they repress based on their previous experience and their past and present behaviour is informed by the structure of those repressions and the interaction with present events (a good example of that is the disarming of Spike's trigger in LMPTM). Which is why I love Darla's line about 'What we once were informs all that we become' because even though sometimes the motivation of behaviour is expressed teleologically, whoever wrote that line is aware of the need for a non-circular basis of behaviour.

I'm pooped. More later.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Its a workday. Will respond when I can. Thanks for these elaborations. -- manwitch, 05:31:49 07/28/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> Intent and causation -- Sophist, 18:01:41 07/26/03 Sat

Just to clarify:

1. Do you agree that an intent can be part of the chain of causation? That is, acts -- say, pointing a gun at someone -- occur in the context of a particular mental state. I see that mental state, that particular pattern of neuronal activity, that "intent", as itself a fact which constitutes part of the chain of causation. Do you agree?

2. Do you think we should scrap the concept of moral judgments, or do you think that we can make them as long as we understand that such judgments may be unrelated to questions of cause and effect?

Very interesting post Caro. I have to think about this. A lot.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Intent and causation -- Caroline, 19:37:45 07/27/03 Sun

Thanks for that Sophist - very thought provoking for me. I can guess where you are coming from in a legal sense. Can I pike out and say that it's not something I've given a great deal of thought to? I don't believe in intentions are in any way causal and are in fact useless because they are teleological (see my reply to manwitch above). I know that we have discussed behaviour this way for centures and for that reason it is difficult to get away from a teleological formation in answer to 'Why did someone do that?'. For example, it's quite easy to know that when someone is angry, there is analagous increase in the levels of chlorpromazine in the brain (I'm a lay person in the neurosciences so I hope I get this right!). This alters the functioning of the synapses and may then result in some type of behaviour. But if we are saying that someone has been caused to suffer anger and couldn't help behaving in that way, then there is no way that someone could have performed that behaviour intentionally or on purpose. Having an intention is different to having an internal state with elevated levels of chlorpromazine. The former is not an efficient cause, the latter is. To take a well-used example to look at how difficult discerning intent can be, look at Anscombe's man who is 1. working a pump handle 2. replenishing the water supply of a house and 3. poisoning the inhabitants because he knows the water is poisoned. The answer to what he is really doing has not determinate answer. He is really doing all those things. The difficulty is that all the things that he is doing are goals and therefore the question 'what is he doing?' cannot be answered, let alone 'why did he do that?'.

I am not arguing that we should scrap moral judgements or morality in general. I'm just arguing that it is useful to know where they come from, how they are caused. At least for me in my own life, it has allowed me to live a much more peaceful life - and I can trace non-teleological sources for that behaviour, thankfully!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> The evolution of intent -- Sophist, 09:14:28 07/28/03 Mon

Ok, let me try some provocation from another angle. Offered with only the best of intentions, of course.

Let's suppose an amoeba. In order to remain alive, the amoeba must maintain an internal milieu within a certain range. To some extent, this depends on external forces outside of its control. To some extent, this requires the ability to maintain its internal state, i.e., a condition of homeostasis.

Now suppose that evolution supplies the amoeba with a new ability. Just for example, let's say it's the ability to move backward instead of just forward. Now imagine the amoeba moving along and encountering a heat source. The base state of the amoeba can, by generating the appropriate chemical signals, retreat from the heat source so that the base state remains within the necessary parameters.

Would we call this "intent"? Probably not. But now let's suppose further that evolution supplies additional systems -- tool kits -- which can be activated when the base state issues the appropriate chemical signals. I propose that, at a certain level of complexity, the entity becomes self-aware. By this, I mean that the brain acquires the ability to form a neural representation or model of the base state. This neural pattern is itself a real entity; it's a "thing" inside the brain capable of communicating with the base state.

Now, when a self-aware entity communicates with that portion of the brain which maintains the base state, resulting in an action by the entity -- say, retreating from a fire -- we might well call that "intent" or a "purposive" act.

Would you agree?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The evolution of intent -- Caroline, 14:43:08 07/28/03 Mon

The short answer is no.

The long answer - the fire is hot, the entity feels pain and retreats for reasons of self-preservation. That is efficient cause. I don't think that the sentience of a being trounces the issue of causality.

We are born with certain physiological drives. Through our interaction with our environment, our psyche, our self is shaped. When those drives are frustrated or fulfilled through external stimuli, we learn, grow, develop, feel emotions etc. Each new external stimuli acts in some way upon us to motivate behaviour. Self-awareness does not mean that a something can be caused by its outcome. An entity's relations cannot be found intrinsic to itself.

To use your example, the neural pattern or representation is a chemical state. There will be elevated levels of some chemical to alert the individual that the fire is hot and may cause damage if one gets too close. So the individual retreats. Their are also a whole range of emotions consistent with the aroused state - things we call apprehension, fear, relief. This works whether the being is sentient or not, otherwise the species would definitely have died out - the fire would wipe 'em out. The neural pattern you are talking about is caused and the behaviour of avoidance is caused.

I think that you are trying to say that there are different parts of the brain that then relate to each other and that therefore that type of intent does not fall into the fallacy of constitutive relations. But you can't get away from the fact that the base state and the neural representation in your model are built the same entity, which is merely able to perform the tasks of pain avoidance, no matter whether the entity is sentient or not or capable of higher order neural maps or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I thought that would probably remain your position -- Sophist, 08:27:28 07/29/03 Tue

I'm more agnostic. I don't see the brain as a unitary whole, but as a collection of overlapping modules. These modules both interact and serve as feedback mechanisms for each other and for the body as a whole. That process is, I believe, non-linear. That leaves open the possibility of intentionality. JMHO -- research will resolve this eventually.
[> [> [> [> Very good Caroline (sniffle!)........ -- Rufus, 19:34:50 07/26/03 Sat

I'll again use a favorite quote.....

"By our interactions with each other we redeem us all." ML Von Franz

I don't know much about the philosophers you are talking about so I'll just say this off the top of my head. We all have opinions on characters, usually based upon what the character has done that we like or dislike. What you said in your last paragraph is about how I feel.


Now I hope that people can see why I don't feel the need to denigrate Spike, Angel or any other character. I find it difficult to judge and say one is good and the other is bad. They have both performed actions society would recognize as good and bad, they have both been what society would recognize as good and bad people at different times. But in their shows, they have been bestowed with a complex characterization that gives each character a logical non-teleological motivation for behaviour that makes observe-y-ness possible. And for me, that means that judge-y-ness is needless.


You recognize that life is always changing and the fact that everything we do has consquences that may not readily be apparent. The best case of this is with Darla, who would have thought the hateful, self-centered destroyer of all things pure and good, could ever change. If a character is evil and does evil to their last moments of existance it's easy to make a simple judgement, but we are all changing and that includes people who are good or evil. Everything we do has consequences and the consequences may be miraculous. I love that quote by Von Franz because she brings us a wonderful concept...the fact that by our interactions it is possible for all of us to be redeemed. The thing is that we never know when this will happen and that is why Buffy and Angel as series are so good. Darla said once that "what we once were informs all that we become" and what we once were is constantly shifting forward as we exist...what is the present becomes what we once were, and combined with our past history to help change what we finally become.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Very good Caroline (sniffle!)........ -- jane, 23:49:51 07/26/03 Sat

What an amazing series of posts! Thank you all for this fascinating conversation. My knowledge of philosophy is pretty basic, some long ago university classes which linger at the edges of my mind. I'm going to have to think about this for awhile. Great brain exercises. BTW, I love Von Franz's quote too. You people rock!
[> [> [> [> Heh..kinda disagree, with clarification -- Random, 11:18:00 07/27/03 Sun

There are a few issues I'd like to clarify. Existentialism argues that existence precedes essence, that is true. This, however, does not imply a lack of causality in any way. It refers to meaning, not actualization. Meaning is not created, it is engendered ab initio (ab ovum,, rather, in the context of this metaphor) from pre-existing materials. Much like an insemination of a fertile egg, in fact. Leaving aside much more relevant issues this brings up, such as the ontological argument for existentialism (sigh), determinism is inherent in virtually all philosophical trends. If it weren't, they wouldn't be developed philosophies, just rambling manifestos on the state of humanity...and suffer quick, well-deserved oblivion while the Schopenhauers and Platos and Humes survive. The fact that a given excerpt of a given philosophy deals with issues not directly related to the source causes doesn't imply that determinism is devalued or a rationale for devaluing the philosophical precept.

Kant's categorical imperatives can be examined in the same way. (Granted, some of Kant's antecedents are a little more difficult to take seriously for the exact reasons you give.) Kant isn't saying that purposiveness is the seminal act. He is merely observing that, within a hermetic perspective of a limited universe of actions, there is a readily definable motive description of an act and a rationale for an act. He speaks of compulsion, but not of timeless absolute compulsions -- his philosophy revolves around syllogisms, not Pronouncements of the One True Way.

I tend to disagree with your point about determinism. I think I see the distinction you're trying to make re judgments -- you're talking about reserving moral judgment in particular, right? It's an interesting point...but it's an extremely fine line between reserving moral judgment exclusive of a judgment of the kinesis. Obviously, all judgment is predicated upon incomplete facts and knowledge about the issue. Even if a man commits cold-blooded murder for money, one doesn't have access to all relevant facts. The life of a mob hitman is a continuum, and while his past doesn't excuse his present action, it certainly influences it. But reserving moral judgment isn't necessarily an inevitable result of determinism, Freudian or not. The fallacy there lies in assuming that determinism must lead to disinterested perspective. Even when an observer grants that for every reaction, there was an action, and so on ad infinitum, he or she is still not proscribed from passing judgment in terms of a philosophical outlook on life, be it personal or from "Great Thinkers from History." While judgment may not be needed in your light, in another light, judgment is highly relevant. The preconditions that lead to an act are a roadmap to how to get there...and if the act is not, by my lights, a desirable one, then I certainly want to avoid that path. It's difficult for me to say that "X commits an act that results in severe harm to Y but judgment is contraindicated because the act is