»You do not truly know someone until you fight them.«

I would like to know the momentous character if any of this line from Seraph: "You do not truly know someone until you fight them".

I think from the context of the dialog between Neo and Seraph, there is nothing of any momentous character in the line, for Seraph was just telling Neo that he had to fight him in order to know that Neo is the one, because by fighting with him, namely, from the way Neo fought, then Seraph could know that Neo is the one, otherwise Neo would not be fighting so well in the judgment of Seraph, if Neo is not the one.

Here is the context of that line:

Quote:

Neo: Hello. Seraph: You seek the Oracle. Neo: Who are you? Seraph: I am Seraph. I can take you to her. But first, I must apologize. Neo: Apologize for what? Seraph: For this. Seraph: Good. The Oracle has made enemies. I had to be sure. Neo: Of what? Seraph: That you are The One. Neo: You could've just asked. Seraph: No. You do not truly know someone until you fight them.

Here is a text from a Columbia U. graduate talking so highly of that line, "You do not truly know someone until you fight them", in connection with his discourse on the exercise of debate.

Quote:

Debate reflects the protagonists and their willingness to engage a synthetic process. Those that come into it just seeking battle often find only what they seek. Those that approach it to practice their skill and sharpen their minds along with the tools of their craft often find much more than they came to it for. They build their own skills but also become familiar with (learn) about much more. War and peace reflect polar aspects of intimacy like love and hate. In the Matrix movie there is a great line when Neo battles the defender of the Oracle and when at the end of their contest he asks: why? The bodyguard of the Oracle, Seraph replies that: "You never truly know someone until you fight him." This sentiment is at the heart of chivalry and jousting and also derived of what is implied by your reference to the etymology of debate. Debate evolved as a form of more civilized combat whereby representative factions were restricted to oratory and the tools of logic, fact, and charisma. this method reduced the demand for might makes right and allowed cooperative efforts to evolve as a consequence in which synthetic alternatives were made more apparent and possible. However Seraph, (don't you just love the choice of name?) was also describing a form of intimacy enjoyed by the wrestler, a recognition that comes from the passion of such physical intimacy that provides insight into the character of your opponent. Insights that may not always be so obvious from a remote and seemingly more objective perspective. For example in such cases boxers and professional wrestlers can detect the *character& of their opponent and determine who is the real psychopath and who is merely a professional killer. It is a warrior trait to see the enemy and know thyself. To recognize the darkness within and also to see it reflected in another but determine if the opponent you face is sincere and motivated by *good* or *ill*. Of course this presumes a certain measure of equal skill or the results of such an inquiry could be catastrophic.

Care to react to the enthusiasm of the author who wrote that excerpt above?

Taken out of the movie story context, can we say that the line of Seraph can appear to dazzle but not say anything sensible, much less constructive or can be put into practice in advancement of civilization?

And I thought that living with and adapting to each other, is the better way to know a person, than beating each other up to pulp.

gerry

gerry: "And I thought that living with and adapting to each other, is the better way to know a person, than beating each other up to pulp"

Yeah maybe, but fighting is more fun

Seriously, is that line from Seraph:

"You do not truly know someone until you fight them."

of any momentous character outside the movie story context?

Here is the version of that same line from the Columbia U. graduate (CUg):

"You never truly know someone until you fight him."

Please also refer to my matrix-explained.com... on the same line of Seraph in the board on questions.

Anyway, taking both versions of the line outside the movie story context of Matrix Reloaded, are they a quote that has universal relevance as a guide for humanity, in order to know a man genuinely and shall we use the word, holistically?

I would like to invite members here for some serious opinions.

gerry

yipman wrote:

gerry: "And I thought that living with and adapting to each other, is the better way to know a person, than beating each other up to pulp" Yeah maybe, but fighting is more fun

I guess it would simply depend on your definition of fighting. If you think of it as a barbaric exchange between two Neanderthals then you would be right in not agreeing with Seraph.

But if you see the fight as a graceful beautifully explicit exchange of one's inner-most self in a way that can only be expressed through combat then Seraph would be right. You do not truely know someone until you fight them.

i think this was added to gain the attention of viewers which do not discet the movies what so ever, the movie was getting slow at that moment.

yipman wrote:

gerry: "And I thought that living with and adapting to each other, is the better way to know a person, than beating each other up to pulp" Yeah maybe, but fighting is more fun

Yeah maybe, but fighting is more fun (emoticon=twisted evil)

I could possibly agree with you, yipman, if we understand fighting as in sports where fighters are not supposed to get crippled or much less and which is worse, get killed: as in boxing which is for all its being a sport essentially violent, dangerous to life and limbs.

Tell me, yipman, seriously, if we ask professional boxers whether boxing is fun and whether boxers get to know each other better by fighting each other in a boxing bout or by living together, what do you think is their answer?

In a broader perspective, seriously, can we properly describe violent sports as fun?

From answers.com... I find the following description of fun:

Quote:

fun [Possibly from fon, to make a fool of, from Middle English fonnen, to fool, possibly from fonne, fool.] The noun fun has 4 meanings: Meaning #1: activities that are enjoyable or amusing Synonyms: merriment, playfulness Meaning #2: verbal wit (often at another's expense but not to be taken seriously) Synonyms: play, sport Meaning #3: violent and excited activity; (colloquial) "they began to fight like fun" Meaning #4: a disposition to find (or make) causes for amusement Synonym: playfulness The adjective fun has one meaning: Meaning #1: providing enjoyment; pleasantly entertaining Synonyms: amusing, amusive, diverting

Why do people engage in violent sports where physical violence is inflicted on the opponents?

This is my opinion: For a living because others pay them to amuse themselves from witnessing violence; for fame, or to prove to themselves and to prove to the world that they are better than their opponents in their strength, dexterity, and staying power, to physically injure and disable their opponents short of killing them.

What do you think?


gerry

phantomprowler wrote:

I guess it would simply depend on your definition of fighting. If you think of it as a barbaric exchange between two Neanderthals then you would be right in not agreeing with Seraph. But if you see the fight as a graceful beautifully explicit exchange of one's inner-most self in a way that can only be expressed through combat then Seraph would be right. You do not truely know someone until you fight them.

Before anything else, I guess we can all agree that the Matrix movies are fantasies, for all their supposedly religious and philosophical underpinnings, which religious and philosophical underpinnings I wonder if the makers who are most responsible for and stand to gain most financially from the movies, are genuinely interested in and concerned about advocating, just like Bush and his people are in regard to bringing democracy to Iraq (hahaha and hehehe).

But if you see the fight as a graceful beautifully explicit exchange of one's inner-most self in a way that can only be expressed through combat then Seraph would be right. You do not truely know someone until you fight them.

I am curious about their hearts and minds, the two combatants, Neo and Seraph, when they fought each other, whether they were motivated to stage a graceful beautifully explicit exchange of one's inner-most self, or a barbaric exchange between two Neanderthals.

Did they have a negotiation before they started fighting, agreeing beforehand that they were not going to proceed like Neanderthals who they think fight like barbarians to exterminate, i.e., kill with extreme prejudice, their opponents?


That line from Seraph: "You do not truly know someone until you fight them", makes sense only in the movie story context.

Outside the movie story context it does not have any universal value for the guidance of mankind to mold man's heart and mind toward civilization.

We can say that it is a fantastic line in a fantasy movie, not to be taken seriously outside the world of fantasies.

gerry

I think you're confusing Seraph and Neo with two guys outside of bar engaged in a drunken brawl. Have a discussion? They're soldiers. Warriors on a battlefield engaging in a timeless honor. I understand why you choose to equate the meaning of this to nothing more than a ploy by two writer/directors who may have only placed the line and the fight in the movie for the effect.

And, sadly to say, you might very well be right to do so. it is a lost concept in this world and W. bros. probably don't live their lives by such codes and philosophies. They just show them on screen for entertainment purposes. Or stage fights for publicity like boxers. That still doesn't mean that there isn't some truth in the concept.

gerry wrote:

That line from Seraph: "You do not truly know someone until you fight them", makes sense only in the movie story context. Outside the movie story context it does not have any universal value for the guidance of mankind to mold man's heart and mind toward civilization.

I agree with phantomprowler, it depends from how you understand the line:

You can either understand it literally....
Or you can understand it within the context of the movie:

According to Larry Wachowski,...
"The Matrix is an exploration of consciousness"

If you understand the Matrix as an allegory for the mind, and the fights within the Matrix as struggles between concepts, ideas, ideals, aspects etc., Seraph's line becomes very relevant. Even more so if you also consider these lines from ETM:

SERAPH: Enough. Good. Again, I apologize, but these are difficult times and it falls upon me to measure a heart's resolve.

Take for example the aspect of poverty and charity. Most people agree that we have to help the poor. But when it comes to actually sharing our wealth, the little egoistic devil in our mind takes up a strong fight against our loving and giving side.

This is the quality of "fight", Seraph talks about,... "to measure a heart's resolve".

The Matrix movies are a representation of abstract concepts by characters, figures and events in narrative, dramatic, and pictorial form.
To apply them to our reality, we cannot take the pictures literally, but have to understand the concepts behind the metaphors.

It is one of the big problems of Reloaded and Revolutions,... that people tend to take them literally.

Fighting is simply fun as hell. And I think you can see what a person is like once you have fought him a couple of times, I mean if he is very aggressive in his style of fighting you can pretty much assume that he is a very straight forward person other wise. And the same goes for people who tend to hesitate while fighting, they tend to be more withdrawn and shy. But yeah sure, if you live with someone you would of course know that person better than if you just fight one another.

And another thing, Ballard connects with more punches on Seraph than Neo does. Anyone else find that a little weird?

Thanks, guys, for your reactions.


Outside that movie story context of the Matrix where I tend to observe that things are overly romanticized,* I would like to invite everyone here to see which of the two quotes below makes universal sense in real life outside the movie world of fantasies and fantasized values:

1. You do not truly know someone until you fight them (him).

2. You do not truly know someone until you live with him.


Consider this situation: you move into a new neighborhood, and the people there pick a fight with you. You ask them Why? and they tell you: "You do not truly know someone until you fight them".

You tell them that you are here to live, and live with them, and you hope that everyone will know each other and live and let live.

They insist on fighting you and start shoving you around and hitting you.

Luckily your kids call up the neighborhood police precinct and the patrol car arrives; the cops ask the men beating you up why they are fighting you.

Addressing the cops, they intone again: "You do not truly know someone until you fight them".

"Where did you get that crazy idea?" ask the cops.

"From the movie Matrix Reloaded", they reply.


You can imagine similar situations, like passing through a strange town, being assigned to a new office of your employer company, or just attending a PTA meeting in the school your kids attend -- and men start fighting you, telling you that "You do not truly know someone until you fight them".


Is that why there is so much violence and killing in some modern societies infatuated with movies like the Matrix series.


gerry

[i]*romanticize:
verb, to view or interpret romantically; make romantic.

To think in a romantic way.
ro·man'ti·ci·za'tion (-sĭ-zā'shən) noun

To view or interpret romantically; make romantic.

To regard or imbue with affected or exaggerated emotion: sentimentalize. See feelings, real/imaginary.

tozy wrote:

Take for example the aspect of poverty and charity. Most people agree that we have to help the poor. But when it comes to actually sharing our wealth, the little egoistic devil in our mind takes up a strong fight against our loving and giving side.

Haha, tozy doesn't like the ego...she's always going on about how bad the ego is. She must be from East Germany, haha.

Lose yourself in the mass of humanity, grasshopper. Only then will you truly find enlightenment.

gerry wrote:

Addressing the cops, they intone again: "You do not truly know someone until you fight them". "Where did you get that crazy idea?" ask the cops. "From the movie Matrix Reloaded", they reply.

Gerry, do you believe that a man, who is kind of in peace with himself and the world, would hear this line and start beating up people?

And do you believe that a man who would start beating up people after hearing this line, would never be violent without hearing it?

I strongly believe that "You do not truly know someone until you fight them (him)" could - if at all - cause violence only in people who have a certain propensity for violence. And this propensity for violence goes much.... deeper than just hearing a line.

At the most,…. violence due to this line would be the effect of a problem our societies certainly have, but not the cause.
Just as the problem of weapons in school is not caused by the weapons, but by the readiness in kids to carry and use these weapons.

Besides,.... honestly,.... I daresay that a person who would be dumb enough to take this line literally and apply it to his or her reality as you describe it, would have fallen asleep at the latest during the Neo-Hamann scene,.... from boredom due to the stupid talking....

gerry wrote:

Is that why there is so much violence and killing in some modern societies infatuated with movies like the Matrix series.

Movies are a mirror of our societies; they cannot form characters and personalities. This is done by the many aspects of our upbringing, like social and familial situation.
If... the upbringing is ok, kids won't be exposed to violence in movies, before they have reached an age and maturity enabling them to handle and adequately digest it.

So, we better stop struggling at the surface and get to the bottom of things, the real cause...

gerry wrote:

Outside that movie story context of the Matrix where I tend to observe that things are overly romanticized,*

Oh come on!...The Matrix is a modern myth! It deals with universal ideas and ideals and has to be translated to be applied to our everyday lives.
Sorry, but what you do is not avoiding romanticising, but taking something literally that is not meant to be taken literally.

Maybe you should take some time to read about the Baghavad Gita, THE Hindu myth (and btw an important influence on the Matrix movies), in which the god Krishna, representing the highest divine, convinces a hesitating warrior to fight in a war (What? A religious scripture does promote and justify war?),... and it's effect on Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violent actions.

How could Gandhi translate a Gita-line like...

Fall not into degrading weakness, for this becomes not a man who is a man. Throw off this ignoble discouragement, and arise like a fire that burns all before you

... into non-violent action?

kamat.com...

holy_of_holies wrote:

She must be from East Germany, haha.

So wrong, honey.

Which of the two following quotes makes universal sense?

1. You do not truly know someone until you fight them (him).

2. You do not truly know someone until you live with him.

Dear tozi, how can I put it? Anyway, tell me your choice of the two quotes above, which one makes universal sense? Just choose #1 or #2.

About mass media like movies not making violent people violent, but they only reflect the violence in people, the violence in our society.

You believe that? Completely, unreservedly?

I am of the opposite belief.

I think there is an ongoing debate about generally how violence in mass media like movies and TV programs contribute to violence in people. What is the finding from that long debate?

I have to find out maybe checking in on the internet which is the most convenient and most uptodate source of information.

But right now I am inclined to think that violence in mass media contribute to more violence in people.

I will report to you here as soon as I find out what is the conclusion from the lengthy debate: Does violence in mass media add to violence in people, in society?

About the Bhagavad-Gita also advocating violence, I for one prefer not to take all such ancient writings seriously; they are useful to find out what some people thought about life and their beliefs and their weaknesses, even wickedness, in times past thousands of years ago.

But we are going to be grievously misled if we take any line from them to fashion our life and acts.

Consider the Bible of the Christians, how much killings and destructions it is still responsible for, because many people take lines from it very seriouslys as to act on them literally. So also the Koran of the Muslims.

But my whole point precisely is that we should not lap up everything done or said in a highly financially successful movie, like this line from the Matrix Reloaded:

You do not truly know someone until you fight them.

So also with all those lines from so-called ancient literature even designated sacred writings.

Better we keep track of the best lessons from civilization, born from the universal experience of mankind and the most lasting and most intensely worked for aspirations of mankind, lessons from civilization which bring us institutions like the International Red Cross, the United Nations, the Nobel Foundation Peace Award, the Amnesty International, Medicins sans Frontieres, and all such non-violent but life and peace advocacy societies.

gerry

Violence in movies and violence in society.


I think there is an ongoing debate about generally how violence in mass media like movies and TV programs contribute to violence in people. What is the finding from that long debate?

I have to find out maybe checking in on the internet which is the most convenient and most uptodate source of information.

But right now I am inclined to think that violence in mass media contribute to more violence in people.

I will report to you here as soon as I find out what is the conclusion from the lengthy debate: Does violence in mass media add to violence in people, in society? -- gerry

Well, tozi, I did look it up in the net, the long ongoing debate on violence in movies, television, and its effect on society, with these words in the search box of Google: movies +television +violence +society.

You know what I found among the first 100 hits?


If you have a piece of paper with one side for 'no influence' and the other side for 'yes influence', and you imagine the 100 hits collected as into a drop of ink, and you drop it on the paper, that drop of ink will form crude arrow pointing to the 'yes influence' side.

Try it yourself and tell me what you find.


gerry

Gerry,
I do not deny that being exposed to violence in the mass media may have a negative effect on some kids.

But I strongly oppose parking our kids in front of the TV in the first place.

No matter how much violence there is in the mass media,… I – as a parent – make sure that my kids don’t watch it. Instead, I try to offer them more exiting, and more active…. alternatives (than watching TV in general).
And if my kids are being exposed to violence, I make sure that they do so in our company.
I am reading Harry Potter to my 7 year old son. There is violence in the books, but we talk about it; that way I introduce him to the violence out there, but I can get across to him my understanding of it,…I can prepare him for what he will have to deal with later, when my reins will get longer and eventually disappear.
I am sure, as a teen, he will be able to watch movies like the Matrix, without grabbing a gun and blowing up people afterwards.

You see where I am heading?

In my other post I was saying, we better stop struggling at the surface and get to the bottom of things, the real cause.
I stick to this.

The real problem is not the violence in the mass media, but the mass media,….. and that we resort to them when it comes to our kids.
So,…I believe, the source of all problems is, that - for whatever reason - we don’t have enough time for our kids:

Have you ever watched little kids fight about a toy? They may not yet have the power to do real harm,…. but they can be quite brutal. Not watching violence won't change this.
Violence is a part of our nature, and it is the parents’ job to channel it, educate their kids about it and show them alternatives.

If we don’t let our kids watch TV several hours a day, and if we have an eye on what they watch,… they won’t be exposed to violence,…. no matter how much violence there is on TV.
If we talk with our kids about the violence they are being exposed to, they learn to judge it and to deal with it.
If we are there for them when they have a problem, we can help them deal with their problem in other ways than by resorting to violence….
etcetera
etcetera

But all this involves our time and our commitment.

So,.. even if the mass media were completely free of violence,… still they are no alternative for an interaction with people and the parents' physical and mental presence. However good the shows, the media cannot make kids feel loved and special.
And that, I believe – growing up feeling loved and special, and thus learning to be in peace with yourself - is the source for a non-violent life, enabling you to deal with the inevitable violence out there....

gerry wrote:

Which of the two following quotes makes universal sense? 1. You do not truly know someone until you fight them (him). 2. You do not truly know someone until you live with him. Dear tozi, how can I put it? Anyway, tell me your choice of the two quotes above, which one makes universal sense? Just choose #1 or #2. (...) About the Bhagavad-Gita also advocating violence, I for one prefer not to take all such ancient writings seriously....

Gerry,
I won't get into a discussion with you about ancient writings,...and I haven't brought up the Gita and Gandhi to involve their values into our discussion, but as an example as to how myth, metaphor and allegory should be understood: NOT literally.

I think it is quite clear that the Matrix is a representation of the mind. The mind cannot be seen. So,.... how do you express a struggle in the mind?
I believe the brothers have found an extremely elegant metaphor by the means of martial arts.
I am not a martial arts fan, but in the Matrix movies these fights, esp. the bending and breaking of the rules (of gravity) make sense to me; because it is virtual fights.... it is fights of values, ideas, ideals… in the mind -> "free your mind"...

Characters in the Matrix do not necessarily represent human beings. The fight Neo vs. Smith, for example, is not a fight between two persons, but the fight between two sides in one person.

In that respect you could translate “you do not truly know someone until you fight them” into “applying theory to reality”.

In theory, much is worthwhile and possible; but apply it to your reality, which often involves conquering your own negative sides,... only then will you know your own resolve.

That does make universal sense...

Seraph does not pointlessly and brutally beat up people. These are elegant and bloodless fights, a metaphorical expression of a character or resolve being tested.

Understanding it this way, I won't play along, ripping one line out of it's context and taking something literally which is meant metaphorically.

gerry wrote:

Consider the Bible of the Christians, how much killings and destructions it is still responsible for, because many people take lines from it very seriouslys as to act on them literally.

That's why,... and that's not unlike what you do with the Matrix.