»Did Wilber get it backwards?«

CaptPostMod wrote:

Larry Wachowski stated that the Cartesian Dilema is present. This means a POV containing that Dilema is presented by the films at some point.

No, it means, you have a habit of ingesting media without properly questioning it.

Quote:

The Dilema involves Cartesian Dualism, the idea that there is a divide between what is spiritual and what is physical.

If I think it's been resolved (actually, it really wasn't an issue) I may possibly understand the subject without you explaining it (again). Maybe?

Quote:

Eventually this Dilema is solved, according to Larry. That means there is a POV presenting Cartesian Dualism, and then a moment where the Dilema caused by this Dualism is resolved. I did not introduce or originate this much of the structure.

Both old-world mystics and modern science both denounce Descartes dileMMa because there isn't one.

And, as far as POV's go, Andy did ask him NOT to do that. Witty humor or a warning. Dun...Dun...Dun...There's a mystery afoot. Mentioning Cartesian Dualism in this day is for homage purposes only.

Gina Rink wrote:

Both old-world mystics and modern science both denounce Descartes dileMMa because there isn't one.

And that's what Neo figures out in the end when he sees the machines as light. He is beginning to see that the divide he saw, body and soul/mind, isn't there at all.

So you're starting to get my interpretation then?

CaptPostMod wrote:

Gina Rink wrote: Both old-world mystics and modern science both denounce Descartes dileMMa because there isn't one. And that's what Neo figures out in the end when he sees the machines as light. He is beginning to see that the divide he saw, body and soul/mind, isn't there at all. So you're starting to get my interpretation then?

I didn't say that...the dilemma doesn't exist in the way that Descartes describes it. In other words, Descartes was incorrect in his assumptions.

Gina Rink wrote:

I didn't say that...the dilemma doesn't exist in the way that Descartes describes it.

So, you are saying that the dilema does exist, but not in a Cartesian way?

CaptPostMod wrote:

Gina Rink wrote: I didn't say that...the dilemma doesn't exist in the way that Descartes describes it. So, you are saying that the dilema does exist, but not in a Cartesian way?

Poor wording, my apologies.

The way it exists wouldn't be called a dilemma. It would be called a sept- or oct-limma. This would destroy the idea of "Dualism" in the way it is currently structured. Therefore, it doesn't exist.

Gina Rink wrote:

The way it exists wouldn't be called a dilemma. It would be called a sept- or oct-limma. This would destroy the idea of "Dualism" in the way it is currently structured.

This would be more inline with Kalki's way of seeing the Trilogy then, with many different worlds/states represented, not just a simple mind/body split?

I definitely find that interpretation of the Trilogy extremely valid. But given Larry's statement about Neo's dilema being Cartesian in nature, and the interpretation of that statement used by most people, I created this thread to explore the idea that Wilber got it bassakwards in his application of the Cartesian Dilema to the films.

CaptPostMod wrote:

This would be more inline with Kalki's way of seeing the Trilogy then, with many different worlds/states represented, not just a simple mind/body split?

Kalki's merely expounding on 7/7's subject. Kalki's expressions (notice I didn't say thoughts), while more "complex" than Cartesian's, do fall more inline with Descartes than some may notice.

Quote:

I definitely find that interpretation of the Trilogy extremely valid. But given Larry's statement about Neo's dilema being Cartesian in nature, and the interpretation of that statement used by most people, I created this thread to explore the idea that Wilber got it bassakwards in his application of the Cartesian Dilema to the films.

I guess you don't realize that he really didn't give you/us enough information to have decent conversation about it. This is a clever marketing ploy because you'll have to research it to understand it. And, who's books will you go to first?

Next, just because Larry (or whatever her name is now) or someone in power says something doesn't mean it's real or that it makes sense. *sneeze* Bush *sneeze* Bless me. And, with that said, just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to everyone.

Gina Rink wrote:

Kalki's merely expounding on 7/7's subject.

No, I'm not ? Sorry, unless I misunderstand the 7/7 post ?

Gina Rink wrote:

Kalki's expressions (notice I didn't say thoughts), while more "complex" than Cartesian's, do fall more inline with Descartes than some may notice.

Maybe to a reader coming from a particular viewpoint. I'm just avoiding any "traditional" religious or philosophical language, because I believe that a lot of it is open to misunderstanding and is tainted by popular interpretations. My expressions are based on personal experience, the Bhagavad-Gita and Upanishads.

I've also taken a practical, logical approach, because that's where we're all coming from. If the physical body, the mind and conscious experience are manifestations of spirit, then a lot can be learned from taking a good look at them. But the ultimate conclusion is a long way away from Descartes, who's ideas were basic, at best.

Gina Rink wrote:

I guess you don't realize that he really didn't give you/us enough information to have decent conversation about it. This is a clever marketing ploy because you'll have to research it to understand it. And, who's books will you go to first? Next, just because Larry (or whatever her name is now) or someone in power says something doesn't mean it's real or that it makes sense. *sneeze* Bush *sneeze* Bless me. And, with that said, just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to everyone.

I agree.

-------------

Gina Rink wrote:

I guess you don't realize that he really didn't give you/us enough information to have decent conversation about it.

Actually, that's the premise of the thread. I'm providing that information as best I can.

Gina Rink wrote:

This is a clever marketing ploy because you'll have to research it to understand it. And, who's books will you go to first?

I've never read any of his books (well, Holographic Paradigm he served as editor for, but he was not the sole author). For information on Cartesian Dualism and the Cartesian Dilema I'm looking at non-Matrix sources that have nothing to do with the Wachowskis or Wilber.

Gina Rink wrote:

Next, just because Larry (or whatever her name is now) or someone in power says something doesn't mean it's real or that it makes sense.

Agreed. And that's why I'd concede that other interpretations of the Trilogy can be more engaging and interesting. But here I'm exploring the Cartesian interpretation directly.

Gina Rink wrote:

And, with that said, just because something doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to everyone.

I don't remember saying something didn't make sense to me in regards to Wilber's interpretation. Could you cite this for me?

Kalki wrote:

I've also taken a practical, logical approach, because that's where we're all coming from. If the physical body, the mind and conscious experience are manifestations of spirit

Manifestations of the spirit? Sounds like "traditional" religion/philosophy to me.

Quote:

...a lot can be learned from taking a good look at them.

You mean, how the Chinese equate the Chakras with Ovaries,testes, adrenals/pancreas, thymus, thyroid, pituitary, and pineal gland.

Or, how a man's inner war could actually be an inner war?

bump