Minako's Purity

[Sailor Venus]

In Episode 109 of the S season, Eugeal commented on Minako's purity:

"The owner of a Pure Heart type that I can't yet figure out..."

"Impossible! What horribly strong mental powers!"

Minako was the only once capable of moving when her heart was taken out. She wasn't "dead" like the others were. (Mars was practically dead, I remember. Chibi-usa fainted on the spot. Mercury was left helpless! Why is Venus capable of moving??)

And, to this day, I still wonder what "type" of purity Minako has.

PS: I really want some good answers! Not obvious run-of-the-mill crap that "she cares a lot about her friends", because that is so general and applicable to all the senshi!

[Zyppora]

Hmmz, well, I read this and the first thing that sprang to mind was the book The Da Vinci Code. They have some stunning revelations about the character 'Venus'. For those who haven't read the book, Venus is the female god in pagan beliefs.

[hawksgirl19]

Ok, how do you go from Venus' purity to the Da Vinci Code? I'm soo confused as I'm sure the rest of us are...

[Zyppora]

Why she can still move? Because she was so sad about not having her pure heart crystal taken out. And when it finally happened, it triggered some sort of mechanism that caused her to run off. She was consciously just as 'out cold' as the other four were.

The book? Venus is what The Da Vinci Code is all about. I'll try to explain it without giving away any spoilers. Sailor Venus is modeled after the goddess Venus (Goddes of Love, Senshi of Love). The goddess Venus takes a central role in the book. Her purity etc. Perhaps it has something to do with that? (I know it's a little farfetched, but it's fun to consider).

[hawk1]

First of all Minako was not the only person to continue moving, Elizabeth (Dub name forgive me ) did as well. She wanted a pure first kiss and continued to move after her pure heart had been stolen. I believe she even tried to kiss Makoto.

Now as for the reason that Minako took off like a rocket I'd have to say it was simply an adrenilin rush. The pure bliss of seeing her own pure heart, of cradleing her purity in her hands that she had been seeking for so long it gave her body a rush of energy.

As to what the Purity itself came from...I have no idea... I'll think more about it and get back to you on that.

[Sailor Venus]

Eugeal remarked that her "strong mental powers" allowed her to move.

But what makes Usagi and Chibi-Usa "more pure" (they're pure hearts were more shining) than Minako's?

In the same episode, a pure heart carrier was defined to be someone who only has one goal in mind.

[Zyppora]

I think the Ginzuishou has something to do with their pure hearts being brighter than others'.

[hawk1]

Prehaps but as you recall near the end of the Saga Usagi's heart was determined to be even more pure than the pure heart in the Grail.

And although that is interesting descussion which I might return to later it is not the topic at hand. I have a theory about Minako's heart.

Prehaps the fact that Minako had not settled down into working on her dream of becomming a Idol yet and as such she remained wishy washy made it so that she was not a target. This does not mean that she does not have a pure heart, it simply means that her heart was overlooked by the Heart Snatchers because she did not match their selective criteria.

Now the reason they finaly went after her was because she did in the end dedicate herself to a goal.

Purity. The goal that drove her was purity itself, she strove for it pinned for it. Put herself in bodily harm for it. In my opinion that was the purity that eventualy drove the heart snatchers to her, purity itself.

[Sailor Venus]

Hawk1 totally agreed! I was thinking that but it seemed too...hm...foreign of an idea to anime. I always thought all animes were somewhat cliche in thinking. (Sure they can have good stories, but they're all cliche and pretty much predictable).


"Is Minako, who's running around donation areas for her own pure heart, really pure?"

Is someone's who's goal is purity really pure?

I love this about Minako! This is exactly the type of society we live in today. Nobody is nice for the sake of being nice anymore. It's always a competition to see who's nicer, friendlier, energetic, "genki", ect.

(I'm a Catcher-in-the-Rye type of person ^^)

[hawk1]

That's something I've always been concerned with when I watch people play video games that reward good behavior. Take KOTOR for example (Knights of the Old Republic for the unl33t unenlightened masses) you do good deeds you recieve light side points bad deeds get you Dark side points. Now I can't remember the situation in the game but a friend of mine did something nice and didn't recieve a light side point for it. He got seriously pissed off that he didn't recieve his 'just' rewards for doing a good deed.

I mean is it really still a good deed when the only reason you're doing it is to help yourself?

A favorite character of mine once said. "Good is selfless and evil is selfish." (Corran Horn by the way for my fellow Star Wars fans in the audience)

If we for the sake of argument accept this as a base for determining the purity of an act is a good deed done solely for the reward and personal gain truly good?

I believe that it is not. A truly good and pure person will make at least one attempt to refuse any and all reward for their actions. The knowledge that you have made another human being's life better should be justification enough for the leg work that went into your deed.

[Zyppora]

Unfortunately, in a world as rotten as ours, the knowledge that you have made another human being's life better isn't gonna pay the rent.

[Sailor Venus]

Of course it does.

I think that the concept that being "selfish" is evil is something that people made up so other people would help them. Take for example, a Calvin and Hobbes comic I was reading the other day.

It basically ran like this: (though this isn't the exact phrasing)

Calvin: I believe that people these days are too selfish. They're too involved with their own needs.

Hobbes: Well, what should they do?

Calvin: Help other people.

Hobbes: Like who?

Calvin: Me, of course.

Now, I'm not saying that being selfish is the way to go. I'm just saying that society values selfless-ness. Why? Becuz it serves them (them, meaning anyone). It's a great idea to adopt. Anyone who doesn't take time to help YOU is selfish. Anyone that doesn't take time to help someone ELSE is selfish.

Humans, being part of the natural circle of life, are selfish in nature. We are programmed to think only of ourselves.

So conclusion?

I think that if a person thinks they're selfish, they should not beat themselves up about it. It's natural. But, its always good to help other people. Why?? Not because of some "moral code". Because you'll feel good. Why?? Since we are raised in a society where being selfless is good, we think that selfless-ness is good. Therefore, when we do something selfless we'll be THINKING that we're doing something good. And, we'll feel good. ^^

Bottom line: The reason the selfless are selfless is because they enjoy, more than others, the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone. If the selfless were to get an electric shock every time they helped someone, then they wouldn't be selfless anymore.

So being selfless-----is still being selfish. ^_^


.......


And, that was completely a tangential topic. Alright, back to the main.

ALL FEELINGS are VALID. You should never feel bad because you think a certain way. Why? Because our brains are blind, deaf, and dumb and wander any which way they want.

Actions, on the other hand, are judged by society. And, with the same thinking I showed above, when making a decision we must consider how much pleasure it will give to us...INCLUDING how much pain/pleasure we will get when the view of society becomes involved. In other words, what are the personal benefits and what are the socio-psychological benefits.

For example:

I don't like someone. And for the sake of argument, let's say I want to kill him. Well, PERSONALLY, I would love to kill him. Why? Because I hate him.

But, we can't stay on that train of thought for even a second without considering what society will think of us. What will the consequences be? Well, will I be able to live with the guilt of killing someone? Will I be able to face society?

Again, I believe there doesn't exist any "moral code" that humans have to follow. Only the "perception of society" and its effect on us.

IN FACT, if I were to be able to kill this person without letting anyone know, AND, be able to handle the guilt that arises from it (where does guilt come from? Society. If society taught that killing was right, there would be no guilt). Then, I think that it would be fine to kill that person.


*This is JUST an example that I am using. I think killing is wrong. Blah blah blah.


In fact, I also, to get my thoughts out. I want to make a distinction between what is said on paper (or what I'm typing now) and what I usually think everyday.

There's a definite difference! I might believe what I say (and I do) with all my heart. But ON A DAY-TO-DAY basis, I do not think or act following these principles.

Analogy:

You know what this is like? This is like smart people, basic highschool bio graduates, KNOWING that the common cold is NEVER EVER caused by being cold. (The Common cold is caused by a virus). BUT! They will still go through life telling they're children to bundle up or they will get a cold. What we KNOW and BELIEVE is different from our actions and thoughts on a DAY-TO-DAY basis.


Example:

Here's an example that I "bumped" into a few weeks ago.

Another belief I have is that I think life is essentially worthless. From a rational point of view, if you think about it, a man is capable of having millions of children. According to the laws of supply and demand, this means that life is essentially worthless. There is so much of it! Life is everywhere. Do I care about someone else's life? Not really. Unless, it has some effect on me. That's why you value your friends and family more than strangers because your friends and family affect you.

This is nice and all.

But, when I was walking along the street I saw a baby bird on the sidewalk. Its leg was slightly twitching and it was very close to death. It must have been just born because it was feather-less. Its eyes were a deep purple and body was a light pink. Ants and flies were already starting to gather around.

This world contains millions of birds. MILLIONS of unborn (that is sperm/egg) birds. And they're lives have no value, on paper. And they have no effect on my life, on paper.


...


But because I live day-to-day, and because of society's sentimentality, I could not HELP but feel absolutely sorry for that small, poor, little creature.

See how there's a difference between what I say and believe, and how I act? See how my pseudo-philosophy (I'm not very educated ^^) explains my actions and thoughts, but is unable to guide them?

Isn't that what science is supposed to do? Explain but provide no guidance? My philosophy is closer to a social science than a philosophy.


Anyway, did I go tangent again? I'm sorry. I've never been able to put these thoughts down on paper before.

Anyway, all thoughts are valid. You're friend (to Hawk1) is able to feel that way. And, in fact, I think that you can absolutely do something just for the rewards, as long as you don't let anyone else know.

Minako's goal for purity was very real, that's why I love her.

Btw, who here actually did something nice without planning for something in return. MIND YOU, this also means pride of doing something good. The warm, fuzzy feeling that you can secretly gloat about. (Look how NICE, I am!- feeling)

Or if you ever donated to Church, you expect that God will always treat you better on Judgment Day.

Or if you ever helped anyone by teaching them how to work the Internet...Or if you shoveled snow for your neighbor...you expect to get rid of your boredom. (I have nothing else to do, so I'll help you to relieve my boredom).

Ohkay, I'm all thought-out for now. -.-

[Zyppora]

Whoa ... big post ...

sailorvenus2 said:

Of course it does.

I think that the concept that being "selfish" is evil is something that people made up so other people would help them. Take for example, a Calvin and Hobbes comic I was reading the other day.

It basically ran like this: (though this isn't the exact phrasing)

Calvin: I believe that people these days are too selfish. They're too involved with their own needs.

Hobbes: Well, what should they do?

Calvin: Help other people.

Hobbes: Like who?

Calvin: Me, of course.

Now, I'm not saying that being selfish is the way to go. I'm just saying that society values selfless-ness. Why? Becuz it serves them (them, meaning anyone). It's a great idea to adopt. Anyone who doesn't take time to help YOU is selfish. Anyone that doesn't take time to help someone ELSE is selfish.

Humans, being part of the natural circle of life, are selfish in nature. We are programmed to think only of ourselves.

So conclusion?

I think that if a person thinks they're selfish, they should not beat themselves up about it. It's natural. But, its always good to help other people. Why?? Not because of some "moral code". Because you'll feel good. Why?? Since we are raised in a society where being selfless is good, we think that selfless-ness is good. Therefore, when we do something selfless we'll be THINKING that we're doing something good. And, we'll feel good. ^^

Bottom line: The reason the selfless are selfless is because they enjoy, more than others, the warm fuzzy feeling they get when they help someone. If the selfless were to get an electric shock every time they helped someone, then they wouldn't be selfless anymore.

So being selfless-----is still being selfish. ^_^

That sound pretty sick if you think about it. Not to mention extremely hypocritical. You're being selfish by saying that pplz should help YOU. If they don't, you call them selfish.

I'm not saying selfishness is bad. In fact, it's better than selflessness, if you look at it in the sense of self-preservation. We all try to live our own lives, and in order to do that, we require certain supplies (think food, protection, etc.) And in order to get these, we need to be selfish (-I- need it). Of course, it's not wrong to say '-he- needs it', '-she- needs it' or '-they- need it', but frankly, you can't feel -their- hunger. The human body is a unit, and it only cares for itself. The human psyche however, has learned what compassion is, but must still abide to the body it lives in.

sailorvenus2 said:

.......


And, that was completely a tangential topic. Alright, back to the main.

ALL FEELINGS are VALID. You should never feel bad because you think a certain way. Why? Because our brains are blind, deaf, and dumb and wander any which way they want.

Actions, on the other hand, are judged by society. And, with the same thinking I showed above, when making a decision we must consider how much pleasure it will give to us...INCLUDING how much pain/pleasure we will get when the view of society becomes involved. In other words, what are the personal benefits and what are the socio-psychological benefits.

For example:

I don't like someone. And for the sake of argument, let's say I want to kill him. Well, PERSONALLY, I would love to kill him. Why? Because I hate him.

But, we can't stay on that train of thought for even a second without considering what society will think of us. What will the consequences be? Well, will I be able to live with the guilt of killing someone? Will I be able to face society?

The problem here is, that more often than not, you act according to what you believe/think. If you are convinced that someone doesn't deserve to live, you'll most likely kill them, regardless of how society will judge you. Everyone knows in the back of their minds what the punishment is for murder. That's the 'reward' for being selfish in such a way. What motivates you to act is the weight of these rewards. Do you want this person dead so much that you think the reward of not seeing/hearing/feeling him anymore weighs up to the 'reward' of being punished by society?

sailorvenus2 said:

Again, I believe there doesn't exist any "moral code" that humans have to follow. Only the "perception of society" and its effect on us.

Ohw, but I think the perception of society IS the moral code. Or at least can be interpreted as such. Would you feel safe if your neighbor killed a person they hated? It's not just the punishment a murderer recieves and the funeral the victim gets that's involved in a murder. Would you not feel extremely demoralised to socialise with a person like that? 'Moral' is more than just a word.

sailorvenus2 said:

IN FACT, if I were to be able to kill this person without letting anyone know, AND, be able to handle the guilt that arises from it (where does guilt come from? Society. If society taught that killing was right, there would be no guilt). Then, I think that it would be fine to kill that person.

Guilt does not just come from society. Of course, if society didn't help blowing it out of proportion, it wouldn't be so much of a point, but still. I think it has to do with 'do not do unto others what you wouldn't want them do unto you' or somethin like that. You don't kill, because you don't want to be killed. You don't hurt, because you don't want to be hurt. It has to do with that 'compassion' thing we feel.

sailorvenus2 said:

*This is JUST an example that I am using. I think killing is wrong. Blah blah blah.


In fact, I also, to get my thoughts out. I want to make a distinction between what is said on paper (or what I'm typing now) and what I usually think everyday.

There's a definite difference! I might believe what I say (and I do) with all my heart. But ON A DAY-TO-DAY basis, I do not think or act following these principles.

Analogy:

You know what this is like? This is like smart people, basic highschool bio graduates, KNOWING that the common cold is NEVER EVER caused by being cold. (The Common cold is caused by a virus). BUT! They will still go through life telling they're children to bundle up or they will get a cold. What we KNOW and BELIEVE is different from our actions and thoughts on a DAY-TO-DAY basis.

They tell children to bundle up because if they don't, the virus will latch onto them and cause the common cold. It's quite hard to tell a small child that there's tiny little animals called viruses in their body and that they're causing him to get the common cold. Poor thing will have nightmares.

sailorvenus2 said:

Example:

Here's an example that I "bumped" into a few weeks ago.

Another belief I have is that I think life is essentially worthless. From a rational point of view, if you think about it, a man is capable of having millions of children. According to the laws of supply and demand, this means that life is essentially worthless. There is so much of it! Life is everywhere. Do I care about someone else's life? Not really. Unless, it has some effect on me. That's why you value your friends and family more than strangers because your friends and family affect you.

That's an economical way to look at it. You can take it one step further even: humans consume. We waste. That makes us non-beneficial to our environment. Then there's the fact that we're frail as hell (it only takes one virus to kill millions of us, for example).

sailorvenus2 said:

This is nice and all.

But, when I was walking along the street I saw a baby bird on the sidewalk. Its leg was slightly twitching and it was very close to death. It must have been just born because it was feather-less. Its eyes were a deep purple and body was a light pink. Ants and flies were already starting to gather around.

This world contains millions of birds. MILLIONS of unborn (that is sperm/egg) birds. And they're lives have no value, on paper. And they have no effect on my life, on paper.


...


But because I live day-to-day, and because of society's sentimentality, I could not HELP but feel absolutely sorry for that small, poor, little creature.

See how there's a difference between what I say and believe, and how I act? See how my pseudo-philosophy (I'm not very educated ^^) explains my actions and thoughts, but is unable to guide them?

I don't think there's all that much difference between what you truly believe and how you act. You value life, perhaps unconsciously, but if you didn't, you wouldn't have felt sorry for the little bird. You're heavily influenced by what you believe.

sailorvenus2 said:

Isn't that what science is supposed to do? Explain but provide no guidance? My philosophy is closer to a social science than a philosophy.


Anyway, did I go tangent again? I'm sorry. I've never been able to put these thoughts down on paper before.

Anyway, all thoughts are valid. You're friend (to Hawk1) is able to feel that way. And, in fact, I think that you can absolutely do something just for the rewards, as long as you don't let anyone else know.

Minako's goal for purity was very real, that's why I love her.

Btw, who here actually did something nice without planning for something in return. MIND YOU, this also means pride of doing something good. The warm, fuzzy feeling that you can secretly gloat about. (Look how NICE, I am!- feeling)

Or if you ever donated to Church, you expect that God will always treat you better on Judgment Day.

Or if you ever helped anyone by teaching them how to work the Internet...Or if you shoveled snow for your neighbor...you expect to get rid of your boredom. (I have nothing else to do, so I'll help you to relieve my boredom).

Ohkay, I'm all thought-out for now. -.-

No comment on the last bit.

[Sailor Venus]

Ohw, but I think the perception of society IS the moral code. Or at least can be interpreted as such. Would you feel safe if your neighbor killed a person they hated? It's not just the punishment a murderer recieves and the funeral the victim gets that's involved in a murder. Would you not feel extremely demoralised to socialise with a person like that? 'Moral' is more than just a word.

I guess the perception of society would be considered a "moral code". But, its not what everyone makes it out to be. The perception of society can change...so the moral code can also change. There's no universal moral code that is set in stone. Example: It used to be scandalous in the Victorian periods to wear short skirts. Now, short skirts are fine to wear. The society's thoughts changed and so, what was "right and wrong" also changed.

I don't think there's all that much difference between what you truly believe and how you act. You value life, perhaps unconsciously, but if you didn't, you wouldn't have felt sorry for the little bird.

I think there's a difference. Through all my cynicism in my explanation, my true feelings are still dictated by society. Life is truly cheap. Society tells me that life is valuable. And, I still cared about the bird. In the end, because we live in a group society, a community, our sentimentality always wins.

I think the common cold analogy was very nice. ^^What we know and accept is different from how we act and think.

You're heavily influenced by what you believe

No, we're heavily influenced by what society dictates as good and bad. This is why racism against blacks was prevalent when Christianity taught that we are all God's people. (1960s) Racism, a force that was completely antithetical to Christianity, was able to win against this mighty religion.
Why else would someone be racist? The only explanation is that society taught, and praised racism.
...
Of course, that's not to say that society ALWAYS wins. I mean in Frederick Douglass's autobiography, there was one white woman that truly believed blacks were God's people and try to teach him to read. She is an example of what we believe is how we act.

Truthfully, and practically, though society always (most of the time, anyway) wins.

[Zyppora]

sailorvenus2 said:

Ohw, but I think the perception of society IS the moral code. Or at least can be interpreted as such. Would you feel safe if your neighbor killed a person they hated? It's not just the punishment a murderer recieves and the funeral the victim gets that's involved in a murder. Would you not feel extremely demoralised to socialise with a person like that? 'Moral' is more than just a word.

I guess the perception of society would be considered a "moral code". But, its not what everyone makes it out to be. The perception of society can change...so the moral code can also change. There's no universal moral code that is set in stone. Example: It used to be scandalous in the Victorian periods to wear short skirts. Now, short skirts are fine to wear. The society's thoughts changed and so, what was "right and wrong" also changed.

Of course, as a nation matures, their morals change. I don't think it will take too long from now before the all of the United States will accept homosexuality into their society, regardless of how much the church says 'no'.

sailorvenus2 said:

I think there's a difference. Through all my cynicism in my explanation, my true feelings are still dictated by society. Life is truly cheap. Society tells me that life is valuable. And, I still cared about the bird. In the end, because we live in a group society, a community, our sentimentality always wins.

I think the common cold analogy was very nice. ^^What we know and accept is different from how we act and think.

You're heavily influenced by what you believe

No, we're heavily influenced by what society dictates as good and bad. This is why racism against blacks was prevalent when Christianity taught that we are all God's people. (1960s) Racism, a force that was completely antithetical to Christianity, was able to win against this mighty religion.
Why else would someone be racist? The only explanation is that society taught, and praised racism.
...
Of course, that's not to say that society ALWAYS wins. I mean in Frederick Douglass's autobiography, there was one white woman that truly believed blacks were God's people and try to teach him to read. She is an example of what we believe is how we act.

Truthfully, and practically, though society always (most of the time, anyway) wins.

No, you should take a closer look: religion and society are two different things here. If you truly believe there's a god, then you may not like someone who claims otherwise. Then again, if you truly believe that black pplz are of lower class than you are, then you'll become a racist. THAT's the way the belief-act thing works.