»the indian family?«

Whoa whoa GarlicCityGuru I like it I like it. Fantastic stuff and yes I'd like more. You have joined a few threads together for me and that is really exciting when something falls into place. Sometimes when stuff comes from the inside, it gels together quickly with that kind of background. Obviously like the WB's you are very well read too. Mine has come from some self work, a little sociological background and great desire to understand and put it together. What is your understanding of 'the return of the feminine?' Did we see that in the second film when Neo brings Trinity back from the dead. Bit of a bugger though when they finish her off in the last film, or doesn't it matter anymore, has Neo developed a relationship with the inner feminine and therefore pretty close to complete or will be when he integrates his shadow.
Jungian psychology talks about the unconscious, and I see the Matrix as the surface - the place where Neo asks the question. Sort of like we all ask the question (those of us who have been pushed, shoved, driven to distraction), until we start asking 'is this all there is', 'why am I here' and we begin to be given little bits of insights which lead us to further insights, and we start diving deeper, like going down the rabbit hole, or the underneath stuff. In dreams it can be depicted as the forrest, or beneath the sea, or under the surface of the earth, in other words we are looking for something that is deeper than the surface world we have lived in for too many years. A Roman Catholic priest friend once said to me 'you will not be given anything you are not already able to cope with', is that like Neo's option of the red pill or the blue pill, we can only be willing when we are ready. These movies speak to us on so many levels, they are symphonys of human striving and deliverance, and it is the first time I have seen the human story woven into big story in this way, and as I have said before, if the WB's wanted to make a difference, they could not have done a better thing than to make these movies. Thanks again.

First, let me say thank you tilde. As I mentioned at the outset of the original post, the Matrix is a model for synthesizing/deriving a single 'vector' within 'n' dimensions. It is not only the melding of Philosophy, Religion, and Science; it incorporates a number of 'lesser' dimensions, as well. If one considers these three to be Macro, that is, affecting all of humanity - regardless of the individual variances, then there are also the micro, as well, such as psychology, physiology, and physiognomy. In the beginning of M1 Neo is approached regarding the sale of contraband software that alters the consciousness of the user. But, if the user is really a construct of a larger program - what we are lead to believe throughout the series is called 'The Matrix' - then this contraband represents a conundrum, a paradox. It also represents an anomaly (or 'bug'?) in the construct of 'The Matrix': If The Architect has created a perfect construct for the human conscience then why are people still seeking such 'breaks from reality'? So, what is the Reality, anyway, and why would someone need to escape from it if it was flawless in its design? Moreover, how is it that the Architect and/or the agents/sentinels do not detect the presence of this alteration of the false consciousness? And then, Neo is (ultimately) presented with 2 PILLS to choose his 'fate'. Again, this is symbolically a construct for altering the conscience. So, this begs the question that is the inverse of 'can Man know the Mind of God?' - 'Can God know the Mind of Man?' Even when Man is entirely 'given over' to God? After all, the people who sought the mind-altering software were not (as far as we know) 'unplugged' from The Matrix. Hmmm.

For now I don't have much time to go into the much more, but I do want to bring two additional thoughts into the discussion:

#1) Can Zion exist without The Matrix? Consider the following:
a) We see people within The Matrix eating - made obvious in M3 by the cookies that the Oracle has made. Food is the source of energy for humans who, we are lead to believe, are being kept in an state of suspended animation and used for energy for the Machines. Why would the Architect create an illusory existence where such a basic human need is still 'projected' into the consciousness of programming constructs? In almost all human religion-myths, we are told that there is no need for food in 'heaven'. But, we never see anyone from or in Zion - in any of the 3 movies - (considering those aboard the ships as being 'from Zion') - EATING anything! In fact, we are given a visual trick in M3 when 'Z' is seen grinding something with a mortar & pestle, but it turns out to be powder for the bombs! And, in the end, when the Oracle asks the Architect about those not already in Zion but who make the choice of Free Will what He will do, He does not tell Her that they can go join the others in Zion. He simply tells Her that 'They will be set Free'.

#2) The Sacred Feminine: Trinity is not the only representative of this concept nor the only symbolism for it. You did indeed catch one aspect of this, but I believe that you grasped at it, rather than grabbing it (I say this with the caveats that a - I say this out of respect for the fact that you recognized the possibility and mean no disrespect with my comments, b - As always, I may be incorrect anyway...) I think that the ultimate symbol for Neo's merger with the SF is twofold: First is the anagram One (as in a marriage, where a Man and a Woman become One before God - political correctness not withstanding...) And, the act of consummation, wherein the woman takes the man into her (ultimately) for the purpose of creating a new one (which will eventually become only 'half of the equation' - until they marry.) Neo does this when he 'accepts' (Oracle) Smith. But, in this is he is almost the anti-SF, for his purpose in their 'congregation' is not to Create but to Destroy. In the end, it is the Oracle who represents the SF. And, throughout, she has been one half of the couple with The Architect. For They Conceive but as with the pagan mythology, it is She who Sets Free.

I hope that this gives you more to chew on for now...

Yes thanks, the more the better, I need a little time to digest it and make connections, as I'm sure you understand the process. I am just looking at a quote above here 'Merovingian: 'Goddammit woman, you will be the end of me'. Of course this would be the case because if he stops projecting his lost feminine onto the woman on the outside, and begins a relationship with the one on the inside, it would be the end of him as he knows himself, the capitalist, corportatised, power hungry, arrogant, abusive, controlling male. Once the belle has been restored to the basilica, that function in its rightful place is the opposite of all the above, and therefore he would be thrown into questioning his motives, his integrity, his honesty, everthing about him that gave him his King like status over others. It is the means by which we understand truth and justice.
There are a few other things here I want to clarify too, so bear with me please.
You say can man know the mind of god and vice versa. According to the
scriptures, we were made in god's image, and this was explained to me once by a roman catholic priest (better variety), that as with dreams, god is within as well as without. So I guess by that, the more we get closer to the God within, the better understanding we have of our own pathos as well as why an everloving god would give us the things we are given to work through. Namely war, and abuse, digging into mother earth, (ecofeminism)and the abuse and rape of women and children., and of course much much more. Whilst the feminine is being abused, the one on the inside is also being abused. Everything as I see it is a sacrifice. For instance how will men develop a creators consciousness without having the souls of aborted babies shoved into his face often enough till he begins to see his connection to the sacrifice.

In M1 they were definitely sitting around a table consuming the snot like 'everything the human body needs', cookies were also being made and consumed in M1. Does the cookies have anything to do with the cookies in computer language. I am going on for sixty, and I have a love/hate relationship with them. Love them for what they can do, but hate them for the pain and frustration they cause me. It is interesting that each generation that comes along seems to already have the knowledge about computers already in place, like a native memory. Whereas with my generation, it is unusual for people to try to develop a relationship with them. (Relationship with a machine!)

The pills are a construct, but not for altering the conscience, but consciousness. I do believe there is a difference. Was it a typo error. Certainly altering consciousness can bring about change in conscience, to the point of even developing one I believe.

When you talk about two people getting together and making 1. I'm not sure when this came about, but most literature I have read seem to settle on the era in history with the crusades and the burdening of the earth woman with the knights spiritual life, which women of my generation are beginning to understand as a loss of life giving energy. The concept of romantic love. Of course the aristocratic ladies of the time were honoured and revered, however they didn't have to do the things that modern day women have to do to keep life and limb together, such as have children, raise them, and go to work amongst a miriad of other energy consuming tasks, apart from the ever threatening own inner work. The added burden of partners lost emotional life (anima) has become way too much for earth women to bear. The ideal of course, and the path, is for each to develop their inner lives and become two complete human beings together in a commitment of true love, without the psychological manipulations on both parts to maintain the lie. It is the truth beneath the lie we must aim for, this I believe is the process of becoming whole, coming out of denial, getting into the real world, not a fantasy like world. Like walking out of the garden, and never being able to go back. As Morpheous said to Neo 'but would you really want to'. After starting to fish a bit, there is a natural leaning I believe to completeness. That is why Neo was offered both the blue and red pill at the beginning, because at that stage he could probably have still gone back, however I tend to believe he would still be asking the question anyway, so he would still be in angst. Sometimes it can be an attractive proposition, however once the knowing is there, thereis no way of going back unless you are prepared to live in a fantasy world again. The church of course is another feminine container for housing the spirit, just as our bodies are the temple of our souls.

I like it when you say I think, because we can never have the full story, some of us have moved a little further along the evolutionary scale, but who knows the what or where or why of the completed product. If it is with our completeness (God doesn't want us to be happy, but complete, and in our completeness we will find happiness), how do we know when that has occurred. There's no red or blue finishing line. Maybe the further along the consciousness path we go we start to become 'knowers of the known', meaning of course that the knowledge and understanding is already there, we just have to retrieve it, or evolve into it. It isn't the intellectual work that will get us there, not on it own anyway, its the feeling work, and putting the belle back in the basilica where it belongs, not on the shoulders of earth women. For centuries women have been lead to believe that they are beholding to men for the roof over their heads and their very physicial survival. The concept of psychological survival or soul death is only now beginning to be understood by men, and not your average Joe in the street, he still believes that his contribution to the two halves has much greater weight than anything she could possibly give to him (beside a safe supply of sex and sons to carry on his name), if at all he is conscious enough to recognize that she gives anything at all. Mostly he believes that he is the architect of everything in his little world. Ego has to be sacrificed so that the greater love and awareness can shine through.

Anyway thats a bit more, a bit too much more me thinks, I am writing essays like you. Thanks anyway, keep it up, I like the bits that make the connections fall into place, it is very exciting. By the way I am a bit of an anomaly in my generation. The inner feminine and vibrant masculine certainly adds a bit of spice and energy and life force to the aging, dying mind and body.

garlicguru, i think u are too quick to accept the sang-real version of the grail legend as the truth. this is probably not much more than a modern myth.

first of all, the evidence is quite contentious and very open to argument. even the original grail legend is probably not more than myth.
second, the claim that catholic doctrine crystallised only during the council at nicea is utter tripe. all the evidence is against. there are many reasons, but a few -
tradition is very strong in the church. you can exclude gospels and burn a few heretics, but the fact is that the church had grown to a HUGE size at the time of the council of nicea. how could those people magically forget the 'truth' simply because the bible was recompiled and a new creed was written? how come very few people have heard of these so-called gosels? the claim is very ridiculous.
there is also an oft forget fact- the christian missionaries. many of the apostles have travelled far and wide, and all of their teachings are consistent. ALL of them were lying? jesus had a band of liars as his core disciples? bullshit. fact: aposle thomas came to india sometime around 50 ad, but neither he nor his converts here have ever heard of MM being JC's wife. he taught that JC was god, not a mortal. is it even remotely possible that the nicean council could change what was taught in india? and thats just one xample.

third, we get to the bottom of this myths popularity- inspite of being totally devoid of proof and being based rather on nebulous interpretations of certain symbols, the myth is highly popular. why? because of the lure of all 'conspiracy theories' - the feeling that we alone know the 'truth'. the excitement of supposedly esotoric knowledge (the very foundation of gnosticism). because of this feeling, no evidence that we present will convince those lured by such theories since that would mean losing this feeling of having special knowledge. before you give me evidence(and i want some) think about that.

it is my conclusion that this legend is nothing more than modern myth, fuelled by those who feel their need to be unique satisfied with the 'special knowledge'. and FYI, hindi is a language, not a culture or a people. u must mean hindu, there is a distinction.

no offence, but it is amusing to see women jump at anything that says 'feminism' nowadays. why do women feel so inadequate? modern women seem to have a fashionable inadequacy compex, and the cure seems to be feminism.

You sound threatened by the term feminism or ecofeminism, so I won't cause you any further angst by going there.
A myth is a dream 'Morpehous - 'I have dreamed a dream', only on a collective scale. Like dreams when they come to the surface in our own small stories they help to move us along into our pathway one by one into big story, if we are not frightened to try to understand them, and own them. Some further along the path than others, until so many collectively are at a point where a new myth is created - another crossroad, and although some resistant souls are left behind with the old mindset, others are on their way, and some are well into the new reality. To me myths and dreams are scripts to realities. Only by facing down fear and desiring to free our minds can this be done. The most we have to fear is what is underneath our own constructed realities or masks, our shadows. When we are brave enough to own them, only then will we be given the next step. When you next sleep ask to be shown what state your own anima is in. You may be shocked, and you should be frightened. Quite rightly Neo hesitated in the face of the unknown before he took the red pill. Robert Johnson's little books - He, She and We and many others are very easy and enjoyable reading on the subject, also Transformation by the same author, and James Hillman's writing. The Search for the Beloved - Jean Houston also helpful. She talks about the 'sacred wound'. As I said before, the journey can never be done through the intellect alone, and certainly not by being intellectually exclusive. This forum is and should be inclusive if the threads are to be connected, otherwise there would be no purpose in the forum existing. GarlicCityGuru has given a great deal of ideas and knowledge to the forum and the fact that he or she has given the time to do so should be welcomed. Consider the meeting on the forum to be part of your pathway. Every little helps. Christmas greetings if you are Christian, if otherwise you have all the reverence and respect I can muster, for yours is also mine too.

My question to you all is simple - why does someone have to be right and some one have to be wrong - or at least be more right/wrong? Why can't it just be? We all have different amounts of information and we choose to be ignorant of new ideas or we choose to accept them - but then we have to understand them, learn from them, and carry on until the next choice.

I come from a varied background, and i find the whole intergration idea - that Jesus was a messenger who collected the diffrerent ideas mentioned from the variety of religons - perhaps it is a sigh that we need ot do that again? I am reading a book at the moment which is very very stimulating - Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainence - which deals very much what i have been struggling to understand for a long time.

My thoughts are far faster than my fingers so i apologise for any typo's errors etc.

tilda, i think you are too hung up on jung. jung used to say that freud was used to concentrate solely on sex, but he committed the same mistake again by looking only at the anima-animus thing. as i said, i'm amused by feminism, i dont see any reason for it to be threatening to anyone, except to those who spend a disproportionate amount of energy on it. imho, feminism focusses on the wrong things. in india, there is very real discrimination against women, not the vague paranoia there is in the west. but obviously, feminism can do nothing for them.

your description of getting 'free' is xactly what i meant. its that feeling that lures people to such myths.

anyway, i didnt mean to be unwelcoming in any way to gcguru. his ideas are definitely intriguing, i just want to know if he has anything more to go on than dan brown's da vinci code(just kidding). i just presented some arguments against it, now i hope he gives some evidence for it.

fascinated,
things cant just 'be'. because of many reasons. we can choose between things, and we MUST choose. no one can accept everything. we choose based on reasons. because of this, there IS right and wrong, otherwise there'd be no purpose to choice. but we dont need logic or rationality to feel something is right and wrong, for somethings we just 'feel' that they are right or wrong. killing people is wrong, can it just 'be'? but are there realms of thought where things can just 'be'. i dont think so. maybe, but religion is certainly not one of them. btw ursula k leguin has similar ideas to yours and she presesnts them in a very enjoyable manner in her books. the 'just being' concept is very developed in her stories.

Quote:

Jesus was a messenger who collected the diffrerent ideas mentioned from the variety of religons

whoever told you THAT?
all the 'pagan' and other customs were introduced during constantine's time, as a way of making christianity more acceptable. jesus never collected any idea from any other religion. all his teaching can be summarized easily - 'love thy neighbour'. no other religion can give u that. so maybe syncretism is right or wrong, i dont know, but in my opinion it is simply not necessary.

christmas greetings

In India women are represented everywhere. A woman, Indira Gandhi ruled for 20 years! Sonia an Italian born woman is a leader of a major opposition party. Show me another country where you can do that. In US we are yet to have a woman president. I recently met a business executive who was the highest paid executive in India and she was a woman. Besides, we all know in India they have feminine representation in religion and spirituality. There are women sages who are revered. Why do we have to say God bless? Why not Goddess bless? Fascinated, I share you sentiment about having to collect good thoughts again as the religious establishment and Chist has been hijacked by quacks and their agents. The moment you open up a new thought they send the sentinels of insults and ridicule towards your direction, just like those torture machines in the movie and then these agents are there to “smithify” you and then they tell you what you “should believe”. Smith is the ego, a common, ordinary and small minded entity as the name suggests. It won’t let a diversity exist; it has to put its own label on things. I totally agree with Tilda when she wrote in her post above “Ego has to be sacrificed so that the greater love and awareness can shine through.”

Quote:

In India women are represented everywhere. A woman, Indira Gandhi ruled for 20 years! Sonia an Italian born woman is a leader of a major opposition party. Show me another country where you can do that. In US we are yet to have a woman president. I recently met a business executive who was the highest paid executive in India and she was a woman. Besides, we all know in India they have feminine representation in religion and spirituality. There are women sages who are revered. Why do we have to say God bless? Why not Goddess bless?

EXACTLY! mayb thats whats wrong with feminism's approach. thats all the stuff abt 'empowering women'. but did u know that india, a large number of girls are married when they are 10? that another large number are killed when they are born or when they are detected in illegal sex-determination scans? that india probably has the largest flesh-trade? have u heard of bombay's red light districts? this are facts, not just something i say for fun. thats y i said REAL discrimination, as opposed to all those wonderful things u listed above.

do u want to hear abt quacks? u have no idea what a quack is, trust me. something i read just on the front page the newspaper i read, 'the hindu' - a 2 year old, rahul, was sacrificed by a woman on the advice of a 'tantric' in New Delhi. in new delhi, not in some godforsaken jungle. in hazaribag, a 6 year old was killed by an 'ojha' or exorcist. a mob angered by this, attacked the police, and the police, angered by this, fired and killed one man. forget all that enlightenment blather, and look at the world. there's more to it than what u see on discovery channel or what ur yoga guru tells you.

Why do you feel so jealous when someone complements India, Zen or anything other than what you believe in? That to me is a sign of you being a bigot and quack. You are so insecure that you have to always bring in something negative and brand the whole group with that stamp. Already you have apologized twice for this on other threads and at this rate you can be the next Jerry Falwell. Insult people and say sorry next day. You not only display ignorance and insensitivity, you don't really understand Christ’s message you pretend to preach. You are the best reason why people want to look outside the establishment you represent.

And now I await more insults to India and feminist and whatever else that doesn't fit in you ungracious mindset. Do it more, because you are the best commercial for what Christianity should avoid.

i state a few facts, and you cant refute them, so you start attacking me personally. can you stop this now? dont keep hounding me wherever i post.

u seemed to have a few misconceptions abt the state of women in india, and that is y i told u some facts, so u can compare them with what u know. what conclusion to draw i leave to you. but if u think that is bigotry or because i'm a quack(thats really funny that was why i gave u a few instances of real quackery) then, dont u think its really because of your mindset? beleive whatever u want to beleive, but please stop these personal insults.

To all who have been following this thread:

I have been away for a few days and I am a bit dismayed by some of the posts that have appeared in the interim. If you would indulge a bit of a tangent to my original train of thought, I would like to offer the following paragraphs in response to some of these posts.

First, please allow me to dispel some of your misunderstanding re me and the contents/context of my posts:

This will probably come as a shock to almost all who have been following this thread, but I am Male. Moreover, I am considered (by many) to be a Conservative, Christian Republican (the truth is much more complex; let me simplify as much as possible by stating that re politics: As terse as I can be is to say that I usually "think Libertarian but vote Republican." Viz my religious beliefs: I consider myself Christian but definitely atypical. I used to tend more towards Unitarianism, but they have become too secular and too liberal for my taste. Philosophically, I am a Positivist, and, as such, I proscribe to Judeo-Christian ethics based on upbringing and education (see 'Pascal's Wager'.) I know that all theosophical belief systems share many fundamental ethics. I am not overly fond of John 3:16, for that would mean that God would be automatically disqualifying half (or more) of Mankind to eternal damnation. I believe that if one lives a life of spiritual guidance and intellectual enlightenment then we have achieved our 'purpose'. That is an oversimplification, but this post will already be too long-winded.

I am a well educated (BSs Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, MAs in Philosophy and Western History and I am preparing to embark upon a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics.) I am in my early 40's; I have two children - my son is almost 5 and my daughter is a little over 2 - of whom I have joint custody with my estranged wife (a MS in Micro-Biology and 8 year member of the 49er Gold Rush Cheerleaders - retired - with 2 Superbowl rings and a selection to the Pro-Bowl, in 1998.) I have spent over 20 years in the design and implementation of Information Systems. I do not support 'feminism' any more than I support 'fascism' or 'communism'; I do support the concept that women are equal to men in some things, generally superior in some things, and generally inferior in other things. I use the qualifier 'generally' because there are imbiciles as well as geniuses of both sexes. Moreover, I believe that women are one half of a union that has the potential for true 'divinity' - the ability to create and shape life. I detest the concept that a woman is to be subjugated to the will of a man. I also detest many of the sillier notions of the so-called 'feminist' movement, beginining with ideas such as the re-casting of the spelling of Woman (Womyn), along with the grammatically improper notion of Politically Correct 'Gender Neutrality' that has actually lead to the rewriting of American Dictionaries (for a much more in-depth and eloquent diatribe on these issues I suggest reading Dr. Jaques Barzun's 'From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present, 500 years of Western Cultural Life'. I recommend this tome for many other reasons as well, as this emminent historian has done for modern western civilization what Gibbon did for Roman civilization.)

As for the 'Sang Real', and someone's reference to Dan Brown's 'The DaVinci Code', there are myriad historical, archeological, and theological references to this 'myth'; my first encounter with the story (or, more accurately, stories) pre-dates the publication of this novel by almost 2 decades. It is not a 'modern myth' by any definition (unless you consider anything emergent from the Renaissance to be modern.) In fact, there are several important points to the story that Mr. Brown did not include in his novel. Key among them - and overlooked by many readers, judging by some of the posts that I have read, is that the 'story' - along with the words 'Sang Real' and 'San Greal' - emerged from Moorish Spain (the spellings are the giveaway...) It was carried into Europe by the early Muslims. Of course, they carried only part of the story. Once Protestantism broke the Catholic Church's stranglehold on Europe it eventually became more politically viable to research these things, including Constantine's conversion and the impact of the Nicene Council on the modern Christian Bible (from the 'original' Latin and subsequent versions, from King James to the NIV.) If anyone believes that politics did not shape modern Christian beliefs then they are at best naive and, at worst, ignorant. (And, I suggest that one should look up 'ignorant' in the Dictionary before responding to this point. Note, too, that I am first giving the benefit of the doubt by allowing for naivety.)

Now, regarding my posts: I am positing theories, based upon my interpretation of the movies and founded upon my own education and ideation. If anyone cares to offer a differing theory then I would be delighted to entertain it. That delight is tempered, of course, by the basis for the theory. I find it rude and boorish to simply indicate one's displeasure with any theory just because one does not understand it, or that it doesn't jibe with someone's 'idea' of right and wrong where that 'idea' is not based upon enlightenment, education, or experience but rather on dogma, skepticism, or ignorance (eg. prejudice.) Mostly, I find it repulsive and, to actually use a 'Matrix' analogy, 'Smith-like', when one posts replies that belittle others or otherwise attempt to engage in verbal bullying just because they feel that "...this isn't the way it's supposed to be."

So, I would like to continue posting my ideas regarding the movie to this thread. I hope that others will either enjoy them or enjoy engaging in lively but intelligent debate. I shall refrain from doing so, however, if this is only going to degenerate into nit-picking and name calling.

Thank you. And, Happy Holidays to you all, regardless of how you celebrate the winter solstice...

David A. Donnelly
GarlicCityGuru

garliccityguru,
personally, i thought u were a male. but that maybe because i am unable to associate the word 'guru' with a woman. about feminism, i share ur same views. although it doesnt need mentioning, i support gender equality, and i recognise the absence of it in most parts of today's world. but the way in which feminism tries to implement their mission of bringing abt equality. as we can see even from this thread, it emphasises rather irrelevant matters.

frankly, i know very little abt this version of christology(what should i call it?) other than dan brown's novel and his references and a few google searches. so if i wanted to know more, u would be the right person to debate abt it, right? can we?

my refusal to beleive in this is because of (what i beleive is) the church's past. the church at the very early beginning must have been very communal and insular. they HAD to be, because of rome's merry hunting. so the obvious conclusion is that everyone knew everything, and it was passed on through word of mouth. until the council of nicea, it wasnt very hierarchial - people knew things first hand, or word-of-mouth, the truth. they didnt have to depend on ecumenical councils. how can a council change that, what already know? and u must also take into account the fact that the church must have grown a lot by this time. and there is also the argument that the missionaries' teachings are coherent. (see my previous posts). how do you refute this? is there enough evidence for the other version to hold water against this?

that done with, i must say i am very impressed with your academic achievements. i also have similarly varied interests - physics, cybernetics, philosophy etc etc. i am now in a dilemma over further academic pursuits - something intellectualy satisfying, like philosophy, or something lucrative, like computer engineering, or something between the two, like solid state physics. what do u advice, and how did u choose? choose what u'd love to research, or what fills ur stomach and bank account, or a compromise?

Quote:

I have spent over 20 years in the design and implementation of Information Systems.

doesnt that mean ur a cyberneticist? if so, do know what the last paragraph of valentin f. turchin's 'the phenomenon of science' means? it is absolutely baffling.

looking forward to an informative conversation

Ralph,

Thank you for your kind words and your interest. Before I proceed much further let me invite you to engage me further on off-topic ideas, questions, etc., to contact me via email (or anyone who is interested in polite, if spirited, exchange.) You should be able to see my email link by following the hyperlink from my nom de plume. Meanwhile, I will address your latest post here and now. Afterwards, I am going to start a new thread based on the ideas that I (and others) had expressed at the outset. I would hope that you would seek out that thread and contribute to it as well.\

I will address my responses to your queries in random order.

Re This issue of Feminism: First, I should have stated that I do not adhere to the tenets of Feminism, Communism, or Socialism as political institutions. I do believe in them, in that I know that they exist, their welfare not withstanding. However, the issue arose out of the discussion of the Sacred Feminine as an object of worship, and the incorporation of this 'belief' into the storyline of the movies. I remain steadfast in my assertion that the WB's incorporated this concept and if anyone doubts it then I would point them to the dictionary for the etimology of the word Matrix

Quote:

Etymology: Latin, female animal used for breeding, parent plant, from matr-, mater. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

With respect to the concept IRL Religions, including Christianity, some of it remains, but much of it has been erased, mostly through political maneuvering. It is a fact that the oldest and most widely spread objets d'art are sculptures, carvings, etc. of what has come to be called 'The Earth Mother': A 'Rubenesque' female that appears in nearly every ancient culture (and a few modern 'primative' ones.) Your assumption that 'The Word' was carried about, verbatim, amongst various and sundry groups,
many of which met in secret - meaning that they dared not put anything in writing! - intact and in toto is (no offense) oxymoronic. Consider the parlor game where a simple sentence is spread from person-to-person until, at the end, the content and the message has completely changed.
Now, extend that to an entire set of books (there are records to indicate
that more than 80 separate 'gospels' were written by followers of JC.) extend that over a population of millions and a span of over 400 years and it becomes self-evident that there was indeed a need for an ecumenical council to come together to 'define' an orthodoxy. Constitute that council with political leaders who are accustomed to centuries of patriarchical rule and whose intentions are that this orthodoxy is not just to be a spiritual guideline but will also serve as political orthodoxy (where do you think that the idea of 'Divine Ordination' originated? Jesus never mentioned that His Father would choose the leaders of the land.) Finally, take some time to study the roots of Protestantism - you will see just how the absolute power that 'The Church' wielded for a millenium had come to absolute corruption.
None of this is intended as an endorsement for wicca or as an absolute indictment of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. However, it is those who will not see that are blind to the way that these three major religions cut loose from their roots the incorporation of the divinity of the masculine AND the feminine to the detriment of women. God And Goddess Bless!

Re Am I a 'Cyberneticist'? In a word, no. I have built computer harware, assembled computer-driven systems, designed and programmed system-level code, and programmed myriad applications for a variety of 'systems' (end-user products.) Despite the fact that so many of the elements of these were based by events or tokens there is no truly cognitive function therein: Every element - the causes and the effects - are pre-determined, by machine requirements, by standards definitions (i.e. ISO), by convention (i.e., User-friendly GUI), and (hopefully) by the programmer (see 'Windows 95' . )

Turchin not withstanding, the definition of a cybernetic system is, essentially, a synthetic system capable of cognitive (and, usually, creative) functions. At present time the science of thought, recognition, reason, and abstract projection (creativity) is barely out of its infancy. Until there are sound scientific principles for the complete 'system' of human mental capabilities, e.g. a mathematical/logical model, it can not be implemented in the technology. Science-and-Techne (the proper term in this usage) is a Chicken-and-Egg conundrum; Modern Man (Homo Sapiens) has, at times, developed a technology or technique which has lead to scientific understanding but it is often scientific understanding that propels techne.
Re Turchin and "The Phenomenon of Science": To be honest, I had not heard of this book until you mentioned it. I sought out the text and, having skimmed it fairly well, my thoughts are:

• Upon cursory examination I found several fallacies that appear to be key to the bases of his thesis. One that I found particularly annoying was

  wrote:

  For example, when we see that a dog becomes happily excited when it hears its master's voice and responds in a completely different way to all other sounds we conclude that the dog has the concept of ''master's voice.'' This concept develops in the dog naturally, without any special effort by the experimenter. ...If a dog is shown plywood circles and squares of different sizes and colors and is fed after the presentation of a circle and punished after the presentation of a square, the dog will learn to distinguish the circle and the square and will respond differently when these shapes are presented. Thus, ...we must conclude that the dog possesses the abstract concepts of ''circle' and square. Valerie Turchin,The Phenomenon of Science

  
  Let's synthesize this by restating it as:
  - Feeding/Punishing a Dog in conjunction with the presentation of Objects
  inculcates over time an anticipatory reaction by the Dog at the
  presentation of the Objects.
  - The Objects present during the inculcation may be arbitrary and
  non-representative, e.g. abstract symbols.
  - Therefore, the Dog recognizes abstract symbols.
  The fallacy should be obvious: It is not recognition of the 'abstract symbols' to which the dog responds it is the association of a specific object with a specific action carried out by the 'teacher' (the person or machinery that delivers the reward/punishment.) Note, however, that even though Turchin cites Pavlov in the (unabridged) text, he does not properly cite the fact that it is an inculcated response; one that develops over time by the repititous and consistent set of symbols and actions. In short, it is rote learning, not recognition in the cognitive sense. This can be verified experimentally by substituting a 3-dimensional projection of the original 2-dimensional object. The dog that salivates in anticipation of a meal at the site of a circle will not associate food with the presence of a ball or a cylinder. We recognize that both of these objects can be represented in the abstract by their projection onto a 2-dimensional plane but the dog does not. The dog does not possess the cognitive power required to 'understand' a concept; they can be trained by rote (inculcated) to respond to stimuli. This is the exact type of fundamental concept that evades current mathematical or logical definition - how does a child learn to recognize abstract relationships and begin to formulate them on their own?
  
• I believe that Mr. Turchin is not only overreaching (in many respects) but also that the culmination of this work is typical Soviet Science. His dream of 'neurally-interfaced humans' to form a 'super-brain' in a 'super-being', a biological metasystem, is..."The Matrix"! His final chapter is a barely cloaked arguement in favor of the collective, communism, which he claims can be freed of totalitarianism through science.

  wrote:

  THE SOCIAL ASPECT of the problem of controlling science is inseparable from the problem of controlling society as a whole. Science and production are growing into a single system, and politics and ideology are also inseparably linked to it. Furthermore, both aspects of the metasystem transition necessary for the development of science (the metascientific and social aspects) are also inseparably linked, and there is no hope of fully carrying out the former without carrying out the latter. Thus we have here essentially a single problem--the problem of scientific control of society. And even from the point of view of ''pure'' science this problem is the principal one; progress is impossible unless it is solved. Ibid.

  
  I do not know about anyone else, but I find this line of reasoning frightening.
  
• As for his final paragraph, it is an attempt at a poetic ending alluding to the elevation of man through artiface and through such making nature (God?) jealous of our self-evolution.
  
  

Ralph,

I admire your desire to learn more, to advance your intellect. However, you are facing a terrible hurdle, one that has already been highlighted by tilde: Ego. I would add 'Dogmatism', which goes hand-in-hand with Ego.

Kathy made a very important point re the role of women in Indian culture, viz leadership and spirituality. There is no doubt that you are a first-hand witness to great societal insults to women; derogations that indeed make the complaint's of the west's Women's movements mostly petty. In this respect, I think that the women posting herein should take note. However, there is a bigger picture: The Cultural role of women. Our western cultures have lost sight of the significance of the divinity of women and has gone so far as to place them lower in order than men. This has to have a 'dehumanizing' effect for them (as a man I am unable to truly understand the psychological impact. It would be wise for you, and every man, to grasp that concept. Likewise, as a white man, I can recognize but not truly feel similar impacts upon darker-skinned people in this society.) However, these are social boundaries which shift quiite discernably over time. Anyone who does not recognize the progress that has been made in society by women as well as by non-whites is basically fixated on feeling like a victim. Western culture (as opposed to our society) is primarily based on Judeo-Christian 'values'. And as such it has placed an undue burden on the souls of women. What makes this doubly sad is the observation that modern Western culture, demarcated by the rise of Protestantism, was shaped by (mostly) European thinkers who revived the ideals, if not the ideas, of classical Greek, Roman, and Egyptian cultures. And, with the exception of the 'Ceasarian' era of ancient Rome, all of these cultures recognized and venerated the feminine as well as the masculine. The two major 'exceptions' to these ancient cultures are presumably (and most likely) the very reason for the decline of the 'Sacred Feminine': The Franco-German fixation on Sparta and the establishment of the 'official' Christian Church (as Catholocism) by the ecumenical council(s) of the latter-day Roman emporers. (With your interest in science, you should also be very aware of the extremely heinous suppression of scientific inquiry imposed by The Church.)

With respect the the WBs, I believe that they used a great deal of symbolism and theme in the trilogy that should highlight the diamteric of man's recognition of the divinity of the feminine in complement to the masculine (even if that recognition is subconscious) and the devaluation of the one at the expense of the other through the orthodoxy of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (which not only keeps the aforementioned recognition 'out-of-mind', but, in practice, forces the sublimation.)

I will leave you with this thought: If religion was not so entwined with politics even in western culture (as opposed to Islam, where it is blatant and obvious) then the communists would not have been so adamant about the suppression of religion. "The opiate of the masses" as Karl Marx wrote.

I will be away for the next week or so but I look forward to resuming posts regarding my thoughts on the trilogy and the tangents that you all have brought to the dicussion. I hope that you all will contunie to rejoin the thread.

So, until then, everyone have a safe and happy New Year!

Liked your posts Garlic. When people negatively profile countries and faiths based on a few stray incidents, either they are mixing their ego and political agendas or just being immature. It is as outrageous as generally implying “Christian boys are molested by their priests”, just based on the few recent incidents. I have lived in India at various places. In my experience, in general, women in India actually rule and are really respected too much for a harsh version of feminism to flourish there. It is great that Kathy, Tilde and you pointed out how we may need to honor leadership and spirituality of women over here. God bless. Goddess bless too. Sounds alright.

Most importantly, thanks for putting back a positive and exploratory tone to this thread. Wish you all a very happy new year.