Theory about Scott Pilgrim
There seems to be a pattern in all the confrontations in the movie. It seems like everyone is trying to avoid having to resort to the superego block. Being forced into a position which requires it is like a social checkmate, characterized in the movie as a "K.O." or death.
Like for example when Scott cheats on Knives with Ramona, he does so on basis of his own private Te judgments. He is ashamed of these judgments, and believes that if exposed to his peers they qualify him for ostracism. His general easygoingness and ambivalence with regard to personal possessions qualifies him as an SEI: others' standards of Te are not important to him, only his own is. This along with his attentiveness to others' opinions, and the importance he puts on staying in others' good graces.
However the scene with the third evil ex seems to suggest that that character, an LSI, relied mostly on the presumption of superiority on basis OF his avoidance of the superego block. By abstaining from his desire for meat, he puffs up his own ego on basis of himself and his peers, on basis of this abstinence being a sort of liberating factor from the criticism of others: he alone can abstain from the sins of the superego block, therefore he has greater virtue than the others.
In the final scene, with Gideon, the tide turns when Gideon attacks Ramona: Gideon flagrantly abuses his Se and commits a major EII foul. (he's pretty blatantly EII given that his entire strategy revolves around baiting people with shining opportunities, so that they will give in to him). He is seen pleading his innocence before his peers (even though they are his enemies) before being pummeled into social oblivion. The notion that the superego is always watching is a key theme of the movie: whether we like it or not, we feel a sense of accountability both to society and to the objects (people) who remind us of it. The key to avoiding this innate social anxiety is to become a superego unto ourselves, as represented by Scott's attainment of the Power of Self-Respect.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-29-2010 at 01:29 AM.
OK no one responded to this. Is further explanation required?
Your DNA is mine.
Ok, so I watched this movie last night. I really agree that Scott is SEI, expect he is more forward with what he wants from the female species, and he exudes this general awkwardness that I identify with.
Now, I agree with you that this was all about conquering your super-ego rather than being conquered by it. His first death showed that he would not win through emotion alone, winning on a feeling. He had to realize that he was indeed a flawed person and accept that, ie fighting Gideon for "himself". After Gideon's defeat, he was approached by Anti-Scott, which was the physical manifestation of his super-ego, but he came to peace with it fully, and went to brunch.
yeah tcaud you rock.
This is me and my dual being scientific together
I think this is an opportunity to put Model B into context. What does Boukalov mean by saying the function is strong in the superego and super id blocks? He doesn't explain.
So we're left to figure out what he meant for ourselves.
I don't think Nega Scott is the superego block. I think he's the superego judgments made by Scott. I actually don't think Boukalov's model is entirely correct....
Here's the way I see the functions (looking at it from 16 functions, ftr -- beta Ti vs alpha Ti, for example):
- Each function has eight parts representing eight different perspectives. These parts can be divided between phase processors and quality processors. There are four processors for each element's qualities and phases, and another four for the qualities and phases of relationships between aspects of that element.
- Each function has a definite aim: to improve the state of its element. Aspects processed by a function must balance each other for the totality of the element to be strong. Each of us has a disposition to see the balance tipped negatively with respect to one of the eight perspectives, a situation which we attribute to an imbalance between the perspectives in the other subdivision to it. We make it something of a life ambition to correct these imbalances, thus setting the stage for conflict with people who have the perspectives opposite ours. Although we may not value all the functions equally, we may share a perspective on what the causes of their imbalances are, and these are ties of shared purpose.
I think the unvalued functions tend to put extreme importance on the imbalances, particularly the superego functions. When we become our superego by means of these functions, we make the restoration of the balance the basis for the superego's judgment. So our values become our superego.
Back to the movie, I agree with you, Kama, that trying to win on a feeling was Scott's downfall. Every time he tried, Gideon got the upper hand. Perhaps that was because Gideon always played with every function in mind, where Scott tried play with feeling alone. Gideon seemed to have expert perception of how to use opportunities as leverage: he wielded his strong functions in such manner as to create implicit effects on the aspects of his weaker functions' elements. Use Ne, wield Se by virtue of the opportunity cost. Control everything, you control the opportunities, pressure is implicit.
I think Gideon's transformation into 7 billion coins represented the evaporation of his control over the music industry. With him out of the picture, the power behind that money evaporates, meaning it can no longer control who becomes successful and who doesn't.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-29-2010 at 11:39 PM.
I'd like to make a point about Gideon: he seems to enjoy being angry. Most people are annoyed when they are angry -- they show it through their grimaces. But Gideon hardly grimaces at all. Rather than believe that he is the kind of guy to smile through his malice, I think it's much easier to simply propose that he gets a sense of pleasure from being angry. It seems like this is also true for Sarah Palin, which is why I thought it was worth noting. Both Palin and Gideon are people who thrive on confrontation: their anger just pushes them harder, their frustration just drives them farther. They don't feel a sense of displeasure from being frustrated by anything, it seems: instead they like being frustrated, they enjoy feeling a sense of failure IF they see another person as responsible for it. Where most people people lose control when they become angry, they maintain it and are even uplifted by it. They feel alive, energized by feeling that something is in their way, trying to stop them. They enjoy confrontation.
In that sense I think them profoundly evil because they fight for the sake of fighting. It's probably because I cannot sympathize with them at that level. I can sympathize with a person feeling frustrated, because then I can feel pity for them even if they are my enemy. It's not their choice, after all, just their nature to bring frustration on themselves inadverdently. That's something to pity. But someone who enjoys it? Someone who relishes the feeling of failure? The idea of someone who would push and push and push with all their self-ambitious gusto to dominate and control, and not have any remorse about it? I would define that as an evil more pure than any level of insanity.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-30-2010 at 02:08 AM.
Your DNA is mine.
Knives didn't need Scott. Ramona did, desperately. Consider the alternate ending:
Originally Posted by Kamajama
It's either wear this mask of being a guardian angel figure (not my words, check the comments), or live vagabond forever. Ramona was so persuaded that she was a source of hurt to everyone around her that she was prepared never to let anyone get close to her again. Besides, Knives would probably never have trusted Scott again -- she accepted him for who he was, but who he is is a cheating bastard. A friend yes but, not someone to be relied on. Socially Scott and Ramona desperately needed each other.
Knives was a sign of the old Scott. Ramona represents the new Scott, the more mature Scott who doesn't run away from his responsibility to society. Ramona forces Scott to grow up, to be a man, where Knives doesn't.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 12-30-2010 at 06:59 AM.
Unplug the videogames, shelf the comic books, and go outside.
I don't think Scott is SEI. He reminds me of an ILI guy i've met ( he said he was very shy and awkward when he was young but decided to become more confident. he also has this thing to prove that he is worthy and maintains an image of a cool geek ) .
Ramona is annoying and boring. She just stands there idle waiting to see who ever wins the battle. Her passive attitude towards the situation ( her ex-s not letting her have another relationship and the possible suitor having to fight them ) is off putting. She may be SEE. She has nothing interesting. She waits for someone to compete for her. And there comes Scott doing what she expects.
If I would want to be with a guy and if he would maintain a state of confusion and expects me to play his games and compete for him I would get away at once, without looking back. Either *you* want to be with me or GTFO.
Your DNA is mine.