40th Anniversary Watch Party

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

"The Last Page" - one of my favorites from season 2. Seeing Kam Fong was an added bonus!

[Mark de Croix]

In this episode we see a plug for Vietnam vets by the producers (or TS, a known patriot) to balance their having being unappreciated by American society. In a war flashback GIs were shown as regular guys but also who had unbreakable bonds of loyalty. So much so that character Taylor made it his life ambition to kill the drug smuggler whose mine was responsible for having killed Taylor's close friend, Ed. The plug is made clearer at the very end--a silent montage of black/white shots of these men in the war being friends. Among the purposes to emphasize the humanness of Vietnam vets.

Calling All Geeks : Two paradoxes arise here for you to unravel--who will be the first?
1 As much as the plug serves to offset the negative image of the Vietnam Vet, contrarily it might reinforce a crazy image as well: Who in their right mind would seek the kind of revenge that Taylor does?
2 How could Taylor or anyone possibly know that the mine that killed Ed was actually set not by Vietcong but by drug smugglers? In the flashback scene, Taylor and company are in a military mission fighting the Vietcong--they move through the jungle gingerly with their weapons drawn to make a rescue. The land was filled by landmines by the Vietcong as we still witness today: innocents being tragically killed or maimed by the mines. How could Ed's death be possibly pinpointed not to the Vietcong but to drug smugglers?

[ENSHealy]

In this episode we see a plug for Vietnam vets by the producers (or TS, a known patriot) to balance their having being unappreciated by American society. In a war flashback GIs were shown as regular guys but also who had unbreakable bonds of loyalty. So much so that character Taylor made it his life ambition to kill the drug smuggler whose mine was responsible for having killed Taylor's close friend, Ed. The plug is made clearer at the very end--a silent montage of black/white shots of these men in the war being friends. Among the purposes to emphasize the humanness of Vietnam vets.

Calling All Geeks : Two paradoxes arise here for you to unravel--who will be the first?
1 As much as the plug serves to offset the negative image of the Vietnam Vet, contrarily it might reinforce a crazy image as well: Who in their right mind would seek the kind of revenge that Taylor does?
2 How could Taylor or anyone possibly know that the mine that killed Ed was actually set not by Vietcong but by drug smugglers? In the flashback scene, Taylor and company are in a military mission fighting the Vietcong--they move through the jungle gingerly with their weapons drawn to make a rescue. The land was filled by landmines by the Vietcong as we still witness today: innocents being tragically killed or maimed by the mines. How could Ed's death be possibly pinpointed not to the Vietcong but to drug smugglers?

1. This is a good point, the only answer I can think of is that it seeks to highlight the trauma Vietnam era soldiers went through, and create empathy, even though the act he commits is reprehensible. And we're supposed to know it's fiction, too, I'm imagining. I'm not aware of any Vietnam vets who actually blew up former ARVN generals/smugglers who resettled to the States and totally lost their Vietnamese accents. Side note: this same issue always arose for me with Wave Goodbye and the character of Nick Frangakis. Whenever I watch it I think of how Selleck has often mentioned his pride in Magnum being the first show to portray Vietnam vets in a positive light, but the role and portrayal of Nick is at odds with that. But I suppose you have to seek a balance, as we do know, to this day from all our other wars since as well, that the readjustment to civilian life is not easy. (There's also the issue of whether a murderer would be buried in a military cemetery. I don't think they ever make it explicit, but the cemetery scenes were shot in Punchbowl National Cemetery. See the Episode thread for more on that.)
2. My only theory is that they later found out that although they were on a combat mission, they had unknowingly stumbled upon a smugglers camp nobody knew was there. Or maybe after Ed was killed they reconned the area and found the camp, but we just don't see that part.

The part that I've always had a hard time understanding is why Taylor hires Magnum in the first place. He gives Magnum the name of his supposed girlfriend. Then the girlfriend turns out to have no clue who he is. So Taylor had to already know who Linda is and that she's Cam's main squeeze. How can he know this unless he's already tracked down Cam himself? I believe others on here have asked how Taylor knows where Cam's island is? Maybe he hired Magnum to find that out, but I don't believe we ever see him deliver that info to Taylor. But on top of that, it looks like a big island, how did he know where that gazebo was and that Cam just happened to have a parley scheduled with Higgins in it at the time he was going to be staking it out?

[Mark de Croix]

In this episode we see a plug for Vietnam vets by the producers (or TS, a known patriot) to balance their having being unappreciated by American society. In a war flashback GIs were shown as regular guys but also who had unbreakable bonds of loyalty. So much so that character Taylor made it his life ambition to kill the drug smuggler whose mine was responsible for having killed Taylor's close friend, Ed. The plug is made clearer at the very end--a silent montage of black/white shots of these men in the war being friends. Among the purposes to emphasize the humanness of Vietnam vets.

Calling All Geeks : Two paradoxes arise here for you to unravel--who will be the first?
1 As much as the plug serves to offset the negative image of the Vietnam Vet, contrarily it might reinforce a crazy image as well: Who in their right mind would seek the kind of revenge that Taylor does?
2 How could Taylor or anyone possibly know that the mine that killed Ed was actually set not by Vietcong but by drug smugglers? In the flashback scene, Taylor and company are in a military mission fighting the Vietcong--they move through the jungle gingerly with their weapons drawn to make a rescue. The land was filled by landmines by the Vietcong as we still witness today: innocents being tragically killed or maimed by the mines. How could Ed's death be possibly pinpointed not to the Vietcong but to drug smugglers?

1. This is a good point, the only answer I can think of is that it seeks to highlight the trauma Vietnam era soldiers went through, and create empathy, even though the act he commits is reprehensible. And we're supposed to know it's fiction, too, I'm imagining. I'm not aware of any Vietnam vets who actually blew up former ARVN generals/smugglers who resettled to the States and totally lost their Vietnamese accents. Side note: this same issue always arose for me with Wave Goodbye and the character of Nick Frangakis. Whenever I watch it I think of how Selleck has often mentioned his pride in Magnum being the first show to portray Vietnam vets in a positive light, but the role and portrayal of Nick is at odds with that. But I suppose you have to seek a balance, as we do know, to this day from all our other wars since as well, that the readjustment to civilian life is not easy. (There's also the issue of whether a murderer would be buried in a military cemetery. I don't think they ever make it explicit, but the cemetery scenes were shot in Punchbowl National Cemetery. See the Episode thread for more on that.)
2. My only theory is that they later found out that although they were on a combat mission, they had unknowingly stumbled upon a smugglers camp nobody knew was there. Or maybe after Ed was killed they reconned the area and found the camp, but we just don't see that part.

The part that I've always had a hard time understanding is why Taylor hires Magnum in the first place. He gives Magnum the name of his supposed girlfriend. Then the girlfriend turns out to have no clue who he is. So Taylor had to already know who Linda is and that she's Cam's main squeeze. How can he know this unless he's already tracked down Cam himself? I believe others on here have asked how Taylor knows where Cam's island is? Maybe he hired Magnum to find that out, but I don't believe we ever see him deliver that info to Taylor. But on top of that, it looks like a big island, how did he know where that gazebo was and that Cam just happened to have a parley scheduled with Higgins in it at the time he was going to be staking it out?

ENSHealy you outdid yourself even being an MPI scholar. You write convincingly such that we must award you with the Geek Award, something your house is probably full already. You mention the Punchbowl National Cemetery. So beautifully shown in the episode. It looked like to me the similar Peace Park in Okinawa, resting place for those in the battle of the same name and innocents as well I assume. Splendid beauty both the grounds and museum building. Combatants from both sides are buried and the deceased can be individually found by name, regiment, birthplace, etc. I was touched when I saw the list for those from my hometown. I felt deep appreciation for their sacrifice imagining the horror if the other side won the war. In the same vein we must honor all those who were in Nam and so this MPI episode was kind of a public service message. It's shameful that the GIs got a bum wrap for a war that deceitful politicians crafted. And today a travesty that the national anthem gets short shrift due to politics.

Your take on the landmine is reasonable. I would say depending on how familiar the area was to the GIs. The parcel of land where they were probably was their first and last time there. Ed's body probably would have been taken back to the helicopter; if not probably left there if not buried on the spot. I doubt that later a party would be sent back to investigate the circumstances of Ed's death. The cause was plainly evident.

Geek Spelunker Award "Winner goes to, uh, Mark de Croix." (Please excuse my immodesty in the service of humor. Actually I've pined to be a true geek but it continues to be elusive.)
Did anyone notice the writing on the landmine in the scene? The writing is in English!! Was it placed by British commandos rather than drug smugglers? No. Unfortunately this is a "fourth wall" violation. The writing on it is to alert the audience that it is a landmine not simply a slab of metal: It states, "Front Toward Enemy." Surely this was not placed by either Vietcong or drug smugglers. If anything it would have been written in either Chinese or Russian if not Vietnamese. We've been had. It's all fiction. In conclusion I must say that MPI here strains logic that Taylor was in the hunt for the drug smuggler.

This brings up a related point: Do you think drug smugglers would operate in the middle of all out warfare?? More likely as MPI suggests, the drug smuggling was done by members of the Vietcong. And if true, it really would not incite Taylor to avenge Ed's death as he did.

Why was drug smuggler necessary detail here despite it really being illogical? War combatants generally accept war is give and take. They accept that the enemy kills. But if someone not an official enemy comes along and kills--that's a different story. An outsider party cannot necessarily be excused. So we have here partially a solution to the paradox: Taylor is not fully a crackpot, for the "drug smuggler" was an uninvited party to the war. At the same time he can be excused for being the crazy Vietnam vet because of the unusual circumstance. The script writer(s) took an unclean track but most people will overlook the contradictory details--except for geeks. So if this discussion held your interest then you're a true geek . Welcome to the club!

[Gorilla Mask]

Geek Spelunker Award "Winner goes to, uh, Mark de Croix." (Please excuse my immodesty in the service of humor. Actually I've pined to be a true geek but it continues to be elusive.)
Did anyone notice the writing on the landmine in the scene? The writing is in English!! Was it placed by British commandos rather than drug smugglers? No. Unfortunately this is a "fourth wall" violation. The writing on it is to alert the audience that it is a landmine not simply a slab of metal: It states, "Front Toward Enemy." Surely this was not placed by either Vietcong or drug smugglers. If anything it would have been written in either Chinese or Russian if not Vietnamese. We've been had. It's all fiction. In conclusion I must say that MPI here strains logic that Taylor was in the hunt for the drug smuggler.

This brings up a related point: Do you think drug smugglers would operate in the middle of all out warfare?? More likely as MPI suggests, the drug smuggling was done by members of the Vietcong. And if true, it really would not incite Taylor to avenge Ed's death as he did.

Why was drug smuggler necessary detail here despite it really being illogical? War combatants generally accept war is give and take. They accept that the enemy kills. But if someone not an official enemy comes along and kills--that's a different story. An outsider party cannot necessarily be excused. So we have here partially a solution to the paradox: Taylor is not fully a crackpot, for the "drug smuggler" was an uninvited party to the war. At the same time he can be excused for being the crazy Vietnam vet because of the unusual circumstance. The script writer(s) took an unclean track but most people will overlook the contradictory details--except for geeks. So if this discussion held your interest then you're a true geek . Welcome to the club!

Mark, it seems to me that the land mine origin was already discussed here on that forum.

This was a M18 Claymore: it is an US directional anti-personnel mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Claymore_mine

Since I already knew about this type of ammunition, I made a logical ellipse by thinking that the smugglers of the golden triangle had been supplied with weapons by Air America and/or the CIA (Laos). It's possible, it's far-fetched, that Taylor could have determined who the mine layer was from its remains and serial number... Very unlikely though.

[Mark de Croix]

Geek Spelunker Award "Winner goes to, uh, Mark de Croix." (Please excuse my immodesty in the service of humor. Actually I've pined to be a true geek but it continues to be elusive.)
Did anyone notice the writing on the landmine in the scene? The writing is in English!! Was it placed by British commandos rather than drug smugglers? No. Unfortunately this is a "fourth wall" violation. The writing on it is to alert the audience that it is a landmine not simply a slab of metal: It states, "Front Toward Enemy." Surely this was not placed by either Vietcong or drug smugglers. If anything it would have been written in either Chinese or Russian if not Vietnamese. We've been had. It's all fiction. In conclusion I must say that MPI here strains logic that Taylor was in the hunt for the drug smuggler.

This brings up a related point: Do you think drug smugglers would operate in the middle of all out warfare?? More likely as MPI suggests, the drug smuggling was done by members of the Vietcong. And if true, it really would not incite Taylor to avenge Ed's death as he did.

Why was drug smuggler necessary detail here despite it really being illogical? War combatants generally accept war is give and take. They accept that the enemy kills. But if someone not an official enemy comes along and kills--that's a different story. An outsider party cannot necessarily be excused. So we have here partially a solution to the paradox: Taylor is not fully a crackpot, for the "drug smuggler" was an uninvited party to the war. At the same time he can be excused for being the crazy Vietnam vet because of the unusual circumstance. The script writer(s) took an unclean track but most people will overlook the contradictory details--except for geeks. So if this discussion held your interest then you're a true geek . Welcome to the club!

Mark, it seems to me that the land mine origin was already discussed here on that forum.

This was a M18 Claymore: it is an US directional anti-personnel mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Claymore_mine

Since I already knew about this type of ammunition, I made a logical ellipse by thinking that the smugglers of the golden triangle had been supplied with weapons by Air America and/or the CIA (Laos). It's possible, it's far-fetched, that Taylor could have determined who the mine layer was from its remains and serial number... Very unlikely though.

Hey GM thanks for the heads up. Fascinating. This really puts a wrench into the works. Not only that but I must relinquish my Geek Spelunker Award. I promise to return the award! Not! I'm gonna keep it in my basement and bring it out for guests as it can make a great conversation piece.

GM you make a great conjecture about the CIA in all of this. They could have supplied the local drug smugglers with the mines to protect their operations and thereby ensure shipments to the CIA. You could be right about Taylor assuming the cover plate for the landmine remains intact after an explosion.

Then again it would have to be found as it would likely have been thrown a great distance away perhaps falling into the jungle undergrowth. Would Taylor and the others worry about who laid the mine? That's a stretch I think. I believe it was long after the event that Taylor came to his belief about it, something more conjecture than fact. I imagine military sources identified the same area as one in which drug smugglers (violent ones) operated.

In the end the MPI scriptwriter(s) anticipated geeks like us would belabor over tying loose ends of their script. So they made them even looser!!

[Pahonu]

I would just add to the conversation that, as the war dragged on, the Vietcong became particularly adept at repurposing unexploded US ordinance, including bombs and anti-personal weapons such as this.

[Mark de Croix]

So this means there's less of a chance of pinning the killing on drug smugglers, apart from Vietcong. I hardly think drug smugglers would want to operate in the thick of a battlefield. And again I hardly think Taylor and comrades would stay around trying to locate bomb fragments in order to identify who placed the landmine. However the plot thickens in our hunt to unravel the circumstance: Let's refresh the hunt and look again at the actual MPI dialogue. Here Ed's wife recounts his death:
"Ed stepped on a mine. Later, it turned out it was planted by smugglers.They weren't even Vietcong.They were drug runners."

So Taylor is truly deranged for pursuing a former Vietcong general. If he wasn't a victim of war, we would say he's an idiot, a dope. Some with a back street origin might even say he was a dope to start with for having joined the service (not avoiding it). In conclusion geek analysis reveals that Taylor was truly off the wall, meaning that he is so flawed a character that indeed he might contrarily undermine MPI/TS's intent to counter society's disdain for the Vietnam vet.

The plot thickens more again in our hunt because a new question arises: How does the audience view Taylor? Unlike the geek spelunkers that we are, viewers assess Taylor at the moment of their viewing the episode without the benefit of our collective razor edge analysis. Back in '81 were there any astute media watchers who charted audience reaction about the issue? How did you feel about Taylor?

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Taylor is not fully a crackpot, for the "drug smuggler" was an uninvited party to the war.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement. Your rationale is if he goes after a drug-smuggler who's responsible for the death of his friend then he's not a crackpot. Whereas if he goes after an ex-NV general who's responsible for this same death then that would make Taylor a crackpot. I don't buy that at all. If you have a close friend who was killed by the enemy and you know the responsible party then I'm sure you'd love to take a crack at that guy. During the war or even after. And when you add PTSD into the mix then that would make Taylor's actions completely understandable. Some vets just can't let go of some things, even many years later. There were many WWII vets who until the day they died held deep resentment (or even hatred) towards Japan and its people, regular people who had nothing to do with attacks on Pearl Harbor or the war that followed. Imagine the hatred one must have for a specific individual (officer, colonel, general, etc.) who had a direct involvement in killing someone you loved. Nothing far-fetched (or "crackpot") about that at all.

[Mark de Croix]

Taylor is not fully a crackpot, for the "drug smuggler" was an uninvited party to the war.

I don't necessarily agree with this statement. Your rationale is if he goes after a drug-smuggler who's responsible for the death of his friend then he's not a crackpot. Whereas if he goes after an ex-NV general who's responsible for this same death then that would make Taylor a crackpot. I don't buy that at all. If you have a close friend who was killed by the enemy and you know the responsible party then I'm sure you'd love to take a crack at that guy. During the war or even after. And when you add PTSD into the mix then that would make Taylor's actions completely understandable. Some vets just can't let go of some things, even many years later. There were many WWII vets who until the day they died held deep resentment (or even hatred) towards Japan and its people, regular people who had nothing to do with attacks on Pearl Harbor or the war that followed. Imagine the hatred one must have for a specific individual (officer, colonel, general, etc.) who had a direct involvement in killing someone you loved. Nothing far-fetched (or "crackpot") about that at all.

Ivan thank you for your input. I dare say that you confuse feeling and emotion; they are not the same though people commonly (mis)use them synonymously. I never stated nor implied that merely having resentment or hatred toward a former war enemy made for insanity. Taylor was not such a case: Yes he had hatred for the enemy but lacked its control leading to him murdering a former combatant. Some people tend to fear negative emotions such as anger for fear of acting on it. They categorize feeling (anger) and emotion (violent act) as the same; they are not. The difference between them is the person's mental control of their actions (or lack thereof). Taylor unfortunately did not or could not manage his feelings, such that he murdered someone. He crossed the line of sanity (likely).

Anyway all of this is mute anyway, isn't it? As I pointed out the MPI dialog tells us that Ed's death was not from the actions of the Vietcong but from drug smugglers. His murder victim was a former Vietcong therefore he acted irrationally by choosing the wrong person and killing him. Indiscriminately murdering someone is about close to insanity as you can get. Taylor had no logical basis to jump from drug smuggler (non-Vietcong) to a former Vietcong combatant. If I missed something please help me better understand.

[Pahonu]

I dare say that you confuse feeling and emotion; they are not the same though people commonly (mis)use them synonymously. I never stated nor implied that merely having resentment or hatred toward a former war enemy made for insanity. Taylor was not such a case: Yes he had hatred for the enemy but lacked its control leading to him murdering a former combatant. Some people tend to fear negative emotions such as anger for fear of acting on it. They categorize feeling (anger) and emotion (violent act) as the same; they are not. The difference between them is the person's mental control of their actions (or lack thereof). Taylor unfortunately did not or could not manage his feelings, such that he murdered someone. He crossed the line of sanity (likely).

I don’t really have an opinion on the character, having not seen the episode in quite some time. I do think your explanation about emotions versus feelings is not completely correct. While your statement that people use the two terms interchangeably is accurate, neither is specifically descriptive of an action as you assign to emotion.

Emotions originate in parts of the brain that cause biochemical reactions to occur and change our physical state. The “fight-or-flight” response is a well known example, where when faced with danger or any stressful event, one will experience symptoms of anxiety, such as a racing heart or sweating. This is a form of basic emotion, and it’s deeply ingrained in humans because it has helped us survive as a species. However, one can also experience similar emotions when being rewarded, or simply by interacting with the environment one lives in. Because emotions are basically a neurochemical reaction from a stimulus, they are also considered to be unconscious and instinctive.

In contrast, feelings originate in a different part of the brain, and they are reactions to the emotions. Feelings form when one’s brain assigns a meaning to the emotional experience that one is having. Because they are based on an emotional experience, feelings can be entirely subjective and vary from person to person. Feelings are something that is noticed at the conscious level, and are mental experiences that arise as your brain interprets the subconscious emotions. Unlike emotions, feelings are completely conscious, and this is one of the key differences between them. Although they are two separate concepts, as you correctly stated, neither describe taking some action. That might better be described by the decision making process of the brain, which can be rapid, based on emotional response, or more measured, based on feelings assigned to those emotions.

Sorry that got long. I should probably mention my wife was a neuroscience major and currently teaches human anatomy and physiology. She could name and describe the specific parts of the brain used in my explanation above. I’ve learned a lot from her over the years but not that level of detail!!!

[Mark de Croix]

I dare say that you confuse feeling and emotion; they are not the same though people commonly (mis)use them synonymously. I never stated nor implied that merely having resentment or hatred toward a former war enemy made for insanity. Taylor was not such a case: Yes he had hatred for the enemy but lacked its control leading to him murdering a former combatant. Some people tend to fear negative emotions such as anger for fear of acting on it. They categorize feeling (anger) and emotion (violent act) as the same; they are not. The difference between them is the person's mental control of their actions (or lack thereof). Taylor unfortunately did not or could not manage his feelings, such that he murdered someone. He crossed the line of sanity (likely).

I don’t really have an opinion on the character, having not seen the episode in quite some time. I do think your explanation about emotions versus feelings is not completely correct. While your statement that people use the two terms interchangeably is accurate, neither is specifically descriptive of an action as you assign to emotion.

Emotions originate in parts of the brain that cause biochemical reactions to occur and change our physical state. The “fight-or-flight” response is a well known example, where when faced with danger or any stressful event, one will experience symptoms of anxiety, such as a racing heart or sweating. This is a form of basic emotion, and it’s deeply ingrained in humans because it has helped us survive as a species. However, one can also experience similar emotions when being rewarded, or simply by interacting with the environment one lives in. Because emotions are basically a neurochemical reaction from a stimulus, they are also considered to be unconscious and instinctive.

In contrast, feelings originate in a different part of the brain, and they are reactions to the emotions. Feelings form when one’s brain assigns a meaning to the emotional experience that one is having. Because they are based on an emotional experience, feelings can be entirely subjective and vary from person to person. Feelings are something that is noticed at the conscious level, and are mental experiences that arise as your brain interprets the subconscious emotions. Unlike emotions, feelings are completely conscious, and this is one of the key differences between them. Although they are two separate concepts, as you correctly stated, neither describe taking some action. That might better be described by the decision making process of the brain, which can be rapid, based on emotional response, or more measured, based on feelings assigned to those emotions.

Sorry that got long. I should probably mention my wife was a neuroscience major and currently teaches human anatomy and physiology. She could name and describe the specific parts of the brain used in my explanation above. I’ve learned a lot from her over the years but not that level of detail!!!

“Location, Location, Location,” a famous phrase but irrelevant in the present case. Whether feelings/emotions reside in the heart, the soul, the thighbone, the brain (left or right) doesn’t matter presently. From a behavioral point of view, it is helpful to distinguish feeling from emotion. Some people fear their own feelings, for lack of impulse control. They also may overlook their own cognition as to why they emote in certain ways.

Taylor the story character in question evidently could not control himself and murdered someone without good reason. I colloquially said he was crazy (absent a psychiatric exam, excuse me). Killing people indiscriminately surely warrants consideration for such. Ivan, if I recall correctly, seemed to question this view. He offered examples of former soldiers who harbored hatred toward their former enemies but did not warrant being called crazy. I surely agree but they are unrelated to the Taylor case. Thinking that they do is confusing feelings and emotions. All of the cases are similar in that the former soldiers have feelings of anger, resentment, so on. Taylor separated himself by not only feeling anger but also by emoting it by killing his victim. Surely you do agree that Taylor more than Ivan’s soldiers invite suspicion of being crazy, do you not?

The issue about feelings and emotions receives different accord in different schools of thought. Much will depend on technical definition, also whether conceptual or operational, and for whom the scholar or researcher addresses and the purpose whether informal or formal. The subject is dealt with, spoken about in various ways. What you said, or whatever you said, may have substance but doesn’t here. Doubtless Taylor acted irrationally resulting in murder but surely is outside the category of the cases referred by Ivan. Dither all you want about my distinction between feelings and emotions but is aside the main issue. Clearly you cannot conflate Taylor with the ordinary cases of people harboring hatred. They are not same.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Anyway all of this is mute anyway, isn't it? As I pointed out the MPI dialog tells us that Ed's death was not from the actions of the Vietcong but from drug smugglers. His murder victim was a former Vietcong therefore he acted irrationally by choosing the wrong person and killing him. Indiscriminately murdering someone is about close to insanity as you can get. Taylor had no logical basis to jump from drug smuggler (non-Vietcong) to a former Vietcong combatant. If I missed something please help me better understand.

His murder victim was a former Vietcong? You mean Kam Fong's character? I thought he was a drug smuggler. But no matter - if he was responsible for the death of Taylor's friend then Taylor's revenge is justified. Taylor may be crazy (or suffering from PTSD) but he's not killing an innocent person, you know?

[Pahonu]

I dare say that you confuse feeling and emotion; they are not the same though people commonly (mis)use them synonymously. I never stated nor implied that merely having resentment or hatred toward a former war enemy made for insanity. Taylor was not such a case: Yes he had hatred for the enemy but lacked its control leading to him murdering a former combatant. Some people tend to fear negative emotions such as anger for fear of acting on it. They categorize feeling (anger) and emotion (violent act) as the same; they are not. The difference between them is the person's mental control of their actions (or lack thereof). Taylor unfortunately did not or could not manage his feelings, such that he murdered someone. He crossed the line of sanity (likely).

I don’t really have an opinion on the character, having not seen the episode in quite some time. I do think your explanation about emotions versus feelings is not completely correct. While your statement that people use the two terms interchangeably is accurate, neither is specifically descriptive of an action as you assign to emotion.

Emotions originate in parts of the brain that cause biochemical reactions to occur and change our physical state. The “fight-or-flight” response is a well known example, where when faced with danger or any stressful event, one will experience symptoms of anxiety, such as a racing heart or sweating. This is a form of basic emotion, and it’s deeply ingrained in humans because it has helped us survive as a species. However, one can also experience similar emotions when being rewarded, or simply by interacting with the environment one lives in. Because emotions are basically a neurochemical reaction from a stimulus, they are also considered to be unconscious and instinctive.

In contrast, feelings originate in a different part of the brain, and they are reactions to the emotions. Feelings form when one’s brain assigns a meaning to the emotional experience that one is having. Because they are based on an emotional experience, feelings can be entirely subjective and vary from person to person. Feelings are something that is noticed at the conscious level, and are mental experiences that arise as your brain interprets the subconscious emotions. Unlike emotions, feelings are completely conscious, and this is one of the key differences between them. Although they are two separate concepts, as you correctly stated, neither describe taking some action. That might better be described by the decision making process of the brain, which can be rapid, based on emotional response, or more measured, based on feelings assigned to those emotions.

Sorry that got long. I should probably mention my wife was a neuroscience major and currently teaches human anatomy and physiology. She could name and describe the specific parts of the brain used in my explanation above. I’ve learned a lot from her over the years but not that level of detail!!!

“Location, Location, Location,” a famous phrase but irrelevant in the present case. Whether feelings/emotions reside in the heart, the soul, the thighbone, the brain (left or right) doesn’t matter presently. From a behavioral point of view, it is helpful to distinguish feeling from emotion. Some people fear their own feelings, for lack of impulse control. They also may overlook their own cognition as to why they emote in certain ways.

Taylor the story character in question evidently could not control himself and murdered someone without good reason. I colloquially said he was crazy (absent a psychiatric exam, excuse me). Killing people indiscriminately surely warrants consideration for such. Ivan, if I recall correctly, seemed to question this view. He offered examples of former soldiers who harbored hatred toward their former enemies but did not warrant being called crazy. I surely agree but they are unrelated to the Taylor case. Thinking that they do is confusing feelings and emotions. All of the cases are similar in that the former soldiers have feelings of anger, resentment, so on. Taylor separated himself by not only feeling anger but also by emoting it by killing his victim. Surely you do agree that Taylor more than Ivan’s soldiers invite suspicion of being crazy, do you not?

The issue about feelings and emotions receives different accord in different schools of thought. Much will depend on technical definition, also whether conceptual or operational, and for whom the scholar or researcher addresses and the purpose whether informal or formal. The subject is dealt with, spoken about in various ways. What you said, or whatever you said, may have substance but doesn’t here. Doubtless Taylor acted irrationally resulting in murder but surely is outside the category of the cases referred by Ivan. Dither all you want about my distinction between feelings and emotions but is aside the main issue. Clearly you cannot conflate Taylor with the ordinary cases of people harboring hatred. They are not same.

I was describing the neurophysiological response originating in the amygdala of the brain (I asked my wife ). I’m not talking about pop-psychology left brain-right brain analysis or the colloquial use of the terms. These emotional responses form subconsciously such as welling up tears that have to be consciously held back, or increased heart rate generated from perceived danger. There are many other examples.

Your arguments seem to be describing the outcome of decision making in response to feelings formed consciously. That is different. You remarked that Ivan was confusing the words, and I responded that your explanation to him was not physiologically accurate. That’s all I am pointing out. Feel free to dither, as you say, on this topic or any other.

[Mark de Croix]

I dare say that you confuse feeling and emotion; they are not the same though people commonly (mis)use them synonymously. I never stated nor implied that merely having resentment or hatred toward a former war enemy made for insanity. Taylor was not such a case: Yes he had hatred for the enemy but lacked its control leading to him murdering a former combatant. Some people tend to fear negative emotions such as anger for fear of acting on it. They categorize feeling (anger) and emotion (violent act) as the same; they are not. The difference between them is the person's mental control of their actions (or lack thereof). Taylor unfortunately did not or could not manage his feelings, such that he murdered someone. He crossed the line of sanity (likely).

I don’t really have an opinion on the character, having not seen the episode in quite some time. I do think your explanation about emotions versus feelings is not completely correct. While your statement that people use the two terms interchangeably is accurate, neither is specifically descriptive of an action as you assign to emotion.

Emotions originate in parts of the brain that cause biochemical reactions to occur and change our physical state. The “fight-or-flight” response is a well known example, where when faced with danger or any stressful event, one will experience symptoms of anxiety, such as a racing heart or sweating. This is a form of basic emotion, and it’s deeply ingrained in humans because it has helped us survive as a species. However, one can also experience similar emotions when being rewarded, or simply by interacting with the environment one lives in. Because emotions are basically a neurochemical reaction from a stimulus, they are also considered to be unconscious and instinctive.

In contrast, feelings originate in a different part of the brain, and they are reactions to the emotions. Feelings form when one’s brain assigns a meaning to the emotional experience that one is having. Because they are based on an emotional experience, feelings can be entirely subjective and vary from person to person. Feelings are something that is noticed at the conscious level, and are mental experiences that arise as your brain interprets the subconscious emotions. Unlike emotions, feelings are completely conscious, and this is one of the key differences between them. Although they are two separate concepts, as you correctly stated, neither describe taking some action. That might better be described by the decision making process of the brain, which can be rapid, based on emotional response, or more measured, based on feelings assigned to those emotions.

Sorry that got long. I should probably mention my wife was a neuroscience major and currently teaches human anatomy and physiology. She could name and describe the specific parts of the brain used in my explanation above. I’ve learned a lot from her over the years but not that level of detail!!!

“Location, Location, Location,” a famous phrase but irrelevant in the present case. Whether feelings/emotions reside in the heart, the soul, the thighbone, the brain (left or right) doesn’t matter presently. From a behavioral point of view, it is helpful to distinguish feeling from emotion. Some people fear their own feelings, for lack of impulse control. They also may overlook their own cognition as to why they emote in certain ways.

Taylor the story character in question evidently could not control himself and murdered someone without good reason. I colloquially said he was crazy (absent a psychiatric exam, excuse me). Killing people indiscriminately surely warrants consideration for such. Ivan, if I recall correctly, seemed to question this view. He offered examples of former soldiers who harbored hatred toward their former enemies but did not warrant being called crazy. I surely agree but they are unrelated to the Taylor case. Thinking that they do is confusing feelings and emotions. All of the cases are similar in that the former soldiers have feelings of anger, resentment, so on. Taylor separated himself by not only feeling anger but also by emoting it by killing his victim. Surely you do agree that Taylor more than Ivan’s soldiers invite suspicion of being crazy, do you not?

The issue about feelings and emotions receives different accord in different schools of thought. Much will depend on technical definition, also whether conceptual or operational, and for whom the scholar or researcher addresses and the purpose whether informal or formal. The subject is dealt with, spoken about in various ways. What you said, or whatever you said, may have substance but doesn’t here. Doubtless Taylor acted irrationally resulting in murder but surely is outside the category of the cases referred by Ivan. Dither all you want about my distinction between feelings and emotions but is aside the main issue. Clearly you cannot conflate Taylor with the ordinary cases of people harboring hatred. They are not same.

I was describing the neurophysiological response originating in the amygdala of the brain (I asked my wife ). I’m not talking about pop-psychology left brain-right brain analysis or the colloquial use of the terms. These emotional responses form subconsciously such as welling up tears that have to be consciously held back, or increased heart rate generated from perceived danger. There are many other examples.

Your arguments seem to be describing the outcome of decision making in response to feelings formed consciously. That is different. You remarked that Ivan was confusing the words, and I responded that your explanation to him was not physiologically accurate. That’s all I am pointing out. Feel free to dither, as you say, on this topic or any other.

Pahonu, it's great you have extended your love for MPI to your own life by living near an ocean and enjoying water sports. I think you would have spent your time more wisely watersporting than to have ventured into your present postings here. I dare say you made unwarranted and unanalyzed assumptions about your "physiological" comment. You necessarily assumed that I hadn't studied neuroscience. Next you assumed that the information gleaned from your wife is applicable. This thread is not dealing with the physiological but the behavioral. By doing so you end up going on a tangent away from the main issue: the psychological state of the character, Taylor. Strong reason exists for considering him insane compared to the contrary cases offered by Ivan.

I stand by my explanation about feeling & emotion. You can take pot shots at it, but be forewarned; The dean of the psychology of emotion, Carroll E. Izard, reports that "there is no consensus on a definition of “emotion,” and theorists and researchers use “emotion” in ways that reflect different meanings and functions.” Similarly the textbooks your wife studied and her perspective have been on choices about definitions--in other words influenced rightly or wrongly on subjective value.

Further my perspective is strongly influenced by Albert Ellis, and about whom it is said, "No individual—not even Freud himself—has had a greater impact on modern psychotherapy" than Albert Ellis. [ Epstein, R. (2001). "The Prince of Reason". Psychology Today.] (And when we talk about human functioning, human behavior, human relations, human communication hardly would anyone deny the importance of psychotherapy.) So take it up with Izard and Ellis, would you please? I applaud you for sticking up for Ivan, but your physiological post is irrelevant herein.