The second movie introduces an interesting idea of there being a "sense of self" at the heart of Riley's mind, made up of her core beliefs about herself and the world, and how the different possible interpretations and decisions surrounding her experience of the world offered by the different emotions can affect those core beliefs.
I also rewatched Inside Out this past week (for the same reason), and specifically speaking of the parent's emotional panels, I saw it in a more positive light. There is joy at life, but there is also sorrow at the heart of it "mourning and weeping in this vale of tears." I think of Tolkien's pantheon, where Nienna is the Valar of Tears and Mourning, and it was through her ministrations that the Sun and Moon came to be. I also think of the Meditation on the Tarot passage about how the characteristic feature of the Buddhist is dry eyes, while the Christian weeps. The emotional attitude we have towards the world is more complicated than either Joy or Sadness. It's somehow both.
Mmm—this does raise another potential take on the movie, which is that “Joy” might be misnamed from a Christian perspective. A lot of the time she really functions as what I would call Happiness. The state you describe—of sorrow and happiness alike embraced in wisdom and love—is closer to what I mean by Joy.
And arguably if you make that adjustment in terminology, the movie is about learning joy—just not joy as the movie uses the word, for understandable reasons.
Yes, I think that is closer to my own perspective. JOY (the state we are discussing) subsists in Joy (the character) in the prologue, but once the movie, as such, starts, the JOY moves on from Joy, such that Joy's efforts to preserve JOY turn into this manic ossification of Riley in the state where she currently is. I think this is best seen by Joy's refusal of anything to be forgotten, especially in her offer to bring Bing Bong back to headquarters. An adult who still has close contact with childhood imaginary friends is certainly not something to aspire to. It strikes me as an act of idolatry, actually, where the image is the childhood nature, and the reality is the JOY.
It requires the yin of Sadness to Joy's yang to restore Joy to Riley, and eventually JOY does not subsist in any of the emotions individually, but in all of them together.
It brings to mind The Faerie Queen. In the first book of it, there are three Saracen knights whom Redcrosse Knight slays, one after another. They are named Sans-foi (without Faith), Sans-loi (without law), and Sans-ioy (without Joy), in that order, which indicates the loss of Faith leads to the loss of obedience to the (Natural) Law, which leads to the loss of Joy.
The second movie introduces an interesting idea of there being a "sense of self" at the heart of Riley's mind, made up of her core beliefs about herself and the world, and how the different possible interpretations and decisions surrounding her experience of the world offered by the different emotions can affect those core beliefs.
Very interesting. Gonna try to watch it tonight.
I also rewatched Inside Out this past week (for the same reason), and specifically speaking of the parent's emotional panels, I saw it in a more positive light. There is joy at life, but there is also sorrow at the heart of it "mourning and weeping in this vale of tears." I think of Tolkien's pantheon, where Nienna is the Valar of Tears and Mourning, and it was through her ministrations that the Sun and Moon came to be. I also think of the Meditation on the Tarot passage about how the characteristic feature of the Buddhist is dry eyes, while the Christian weeps. The emotional attitude we have towards the world is more complicated than either Joy or Sadness. It's somehow both.
Mmm—this does raise another potential take on the movie, which is that “Joy” might be misnamed from a Christian perspective. A lot of the time she really functions as what I would call Happiness. The state you describe—of sorrow and happiness alike embraced in wisdom and love—is closer to what I mean by Joy.
And arguably if you make that adjustment in terminology, the movie is about learning joy—just not joy as the movie uses the word, for understandable reasons.
Yes, I think that is closer to my own perspective. JOY (the state we are discussing) subsists in Joy (the character) in the prologue, but once the movie, as such, starts, the JOY moves on from Joy, such that Joy's efforts to preserve JOY turn into this manic ossification of Riley in the state where she currently is. I think this is best seen by Joy's refusal of anything to be forgotten, especially in her offer to bring Bing Bong back to headquarters. An adult who still has close contact with childhood imaginary friends is certainly not something to aspire to. It strikes me as an act of idolatry, actually, where the image is the childhood nature, and the reality is the JOY.
It requires the yin of Sadness to Joy's yang to restore Joy to Riley, and eventually JOY does not subsist in any of the emotions individually, but in all of them together.
It brings to mind The Faerie Queen. In the first book of it, there are three Saracen knights whom Redcrosse Knight slays, one after another. They are named Sans-foi (without Faith), Sans-loi (without law), and Sans-ioy (without Joy), in that order, which indicates the loss of Faith leads to the loss of obedience to the (Natural) Law, which leads to the loss of Joy.