»Is the Matrix world godless?«

Despite the huge amount of religious imagery in the movies, it seems as though anything religious can be explained by an ability to interact with and manipulate the matrix, and not by being in touch with any sort of divinity that exists outside the matrix. Even Neo's "enlightenment" seems to be limited to the matrix and thus isn't particularly spiritual. Am I correct in this? Is there anything in the movie that suggests any concept of god active in the events of the movies, despite all the religious imagery?

And The Most Valuable Player is...?


Indulging in a bit of Irony and Sarcasm…(Sorry)

I think it was really neat the way that Neo happened to be looking for Morpheus as he amongst others had spent their "entire lives" looking for him. Even more amazing, what if he’d got it wrong, what if Neo wasn’t the One? Even the Oracle said she "couldn’t convince him otherwise". Sure is good job Cypher being the "messenger" was stopped by a Miracle!

Then of course there’s Trinity, who found all that faith and love from somewhere just in the nick of time in spite of Neo being dead and telling her he wasn’t the One, phew that was close! How did Neo get to see the underpinnings of the Code and all that power? Hmm… maybe he had some sharp thoughts!

Ok, on to M2 and Now he’s seeing into the future and told he’s “looking without time”. So just to make sure, tells Trinity to stay out of the Matrix to ensure what He fears doesn’t come true. Of course all the time Smith is trying to tell him the reason why their here, but he doesn’t seem to be listening. What was it again?

Lock ensuring Niobie wont be caught in the planned counter attack keeps her home, only to be the very reason she is both available and provoked to volunteer help find the Neb, as none other would but Soren, which causes her to catch Morpheus in the nick of time as he falls from truck, phew, again that was close! Great timing!

Fortunately all has worked out well, not forgetting C. Hammond un-"locking" the Neb earlier, clearing it so the Orc meeting and Key maker could be found, ONLY enabled by Persephone

Now of course Morph’s talking about fate which key maker says is everyone’s Purpose as we find them in the corridor so that smith can hold them up just the right amount of time while the vigilant is hit and Trinity has to enter saving ALL cos there’s nobody else who could do it! Funny how things work out ain’t it? Now the Arc is telling Neo this is what it’s All been about and is the Moment of Truth and Ultimate Expression, the anomaly from beginning to end. Hmm.. scratches head.

With a bit of luck Neo survives his touch with the Source and with even more is rescued by Trinity (again) who doesn’t blink at the thought of not saving Neo. Merv being that "Trafficker" just didn’t see it coming! Or was it Neo that got himself out, as he got himself in?

Now were onto the Hammer, where Neo, without the Oracle’s intuition becomes sure and can see the dreaded place where he’s SUPPOSED to go. Bit of Luck someone believed; following her heart allowing him her ship, as there weren’t any others available, or did the Oracle know that would happen?

Then of course there’s Zion who are considered - Insane - in the light of reason as time and again they sacrifice crucial defences for the sake of the One, which even Lock seems to give way to for a brief moment putting out word to open the door for the Hammer, or was it the thought of Niobie?

Having reached his destination and beaten the smith, somehow all of this makes a huge difference. So much so that the peace is forever for Zion and both worlds are on the horizon for change that’s arising in Sati’s sunshine!

And all due to a prophecy from the Oracle ages old that it would in fact happen, even though intuitively knowing where the path was headed, couldn’t understand its end, but as she said BELIVED.

Quite a bit of luck if you ask me, quite a bit indeed.


Please


The Path is made by the Many, but WHO made the path?

The Oracle may be the biggest player, but WHO played Her?

This is what were supposed to see, through the obviousness of it all, "Beyond the Apearances"

The Invisible player, guiding all.

And IS confirmed in the Neodämmerung (Amongst many others)

(But I guess that’s better left unsaid;)

Just to make sure, this is in fact a response to my post and not in the wrong thread, right?

This is indeed in response

slmille4 wrote:

it seems as though anything religious can be explained by an ability to interact with and manipulate the matrix

My intension was to show that the likelihood of this is virtually impossible. There are many other instances ~like Zee’s conviction of Link’s presence aboard the approaching Hammer, essential in interaction with Kid whose actions are constantly driven by Faith (Neo, I Belive). ~Essential to what the Oracle described as the Path of the One being made by the Many. “If one fails all fail”. Key-maker indicated the same thing.

slmille4 wrote:

Even Neo's "enlightenment" seems to be limited to the matrix and thus isn't particularly spiritual

.

Look up the meaning of 'Intuition', the primary guiding principle of the Movie’s story.

slmille4 wrote:

Despite the huge amount of religious imagery in the movies, it seems as though anything religious can be explained by an ability to interact with and manipulate the matrix, and not by being in touch with any sort of divinity that exists outside the matrix.

As opposed to "explained with" I'd say is "an allegory for"...

slmille4 wrote:

Even Neo's "enlightenment" seems to be limited to the matrix and thus isn't particularly spiritual.

I'd rather say, Neo 's enlightenment does include the Matrix...

Inevitability wrote:

This is indeed in response My intension was to show that the likelihood of this is virtually impossible. There are many other instances ~like Zee’s conviction of Link’s presence aboard the approaching Hammer, essential in interaction with Kid whose actions are constantly driven by Faith (Neo, I Belive). ~Essential to what the Oracle described as the Path of the One being made by the Many. “If one fails all fail”. Key-maker indicated the same thing.

I'll give you the presence of intuition and love in the people in the movie, but I definitely wouldn't trust anything religious that the Oracle says. Her purpose seems to be to manipuate exceptional individuals in the matrix using this imagery along with ideas like faith and fate. I'm also not sure that the emphasis placed on intuition and love are necessarily signs of anything divine in the movies, as opposed to being properties that humans have and machines lack. All of the miracles in the movies are limited to interactions with the matrix.

Inevitability wrote:

Look up the meaning of 'Intuition', the primary guiding principle of the Movie’s story. (^^part of the interpritation to the voice-over song, heard during Neo & Smith's final fight, also included during the end credits) Oracle: The power of the One extends beyond this world (the Matrix). It reaches from here all the way back to where it came from. Neo: Where? Oracle: The Source. I know this is described as "The Machine Mainframe", however the power and events seen, reveal that ‘something’ (described as an ‘anomaly’), while entirely integral, has mastery in its intension and purpose.

Pure metaphor. How could the machines possibly be in direct contact with actual, divine Source? The anomaly is free will, which is what the machines lack. On the other hand, If the matrix is structured to imitate these human notions of the Source and the descent from and return to this Source, it would grant the machines greater mastery over the humans.

slmille4 wrote:

I definitely wouldn't trust anything religious that the Oracle says.

Neo: I suppose the most obvious question is, how can I trust you?

The Oracle: Bingo! It is a pickle, no doubt about it. The bad news is there's no way if you can really know whether I'm here to help you or not. So it's really up to you'. You just have to make up your own damn mind to either accept what I'm going to tell you, or reject it.

Well, we have all got to make up our minds, haven’t we?

*Stay in wonderland and see how deep the rabbit hole goes (remember all I’m offering is the truth, nothing more).

*Or wake in ‘our bed’ (<--metaphor) and believe whatever we want to believe.

Inevitability wrote:

slmille4 wrote: I definitely wouldn't trust anything religious that the Oracle says. Neo: I suppose the most obvious question is, how can I trust you? The Oracle: Bingo! It is a pickle, no doubt about it. The bad news is there's no way if you can really know whether I'm here to help you or not. So it's really up to you'. You just have to make up your own damn mind to either accept what I'm going to tell you, or reject it. Well, we have all got to make up our minds, haven’t we? *Stay in wonderland and see how deep the rabbit hole goes (remember all I’m offering is the truth, nothing more). *Or wake in ‘our bed’ (<--metaphor) and believe whatever we want to believe.

But the whole point is that we later discover that she isn't meant to help him, her purpose is to help deal with the anomaly of free will that threatens the perpetuation of the matrix. Look at her whole tone towards him. She doesn't consider him to be anything special, just another iteration of "the One" who is inevitably going to do all the things that the other Ones have done. Part of the symbolism of the death of the Oracle is that the Neo is finally free from the predetermined path that was meant for him as a result of his identity as the One. Her esoteric musings are just a way for her to control Neo.

slmille4 wrote:

Pure metaphor. How could the machines possibly be in direct contact with actual, divine Source? The anomaly is free will, which is what the machines lack. On the other hand, If the matrix is structured to imitate these human notions of the Source and the descent from and return to this Source, it would grant the machines greater mastery over the humans.

Now this is a fascinating idea. I've pondered this for quite some time and, honestly, I see slmile4's point. It is interesting, in the Revolutions commentary, how Ken Wilber has to point out that there is a "dogmatic" Source of the Architect and the "Real" Source that the Oracle speaks of. However, in both Source(s) which are mentioned, we are speaking of the "Machine Mainframe". To have it labeled as such makes it even more difficult to ever think of it as Divine. Maybe the Wachowskis labeled it to make it perfectly clear that machines, although machines, have consciousness just like humans. However, like humans, they are flawed and not yet truly divine. They are made of light, but even beings of light don't necessarily "know thyself". This is where Neo comes in.

When I look at the Matrix Trilogy, it always makes me think of God finally waking up into the world of time. In other words, our consciousness is God, and God is realized within our own, spiritual growth.

I do believe there is real spirituality, or God (whatever that may mean), in the trilogy, but not as a single individual or external being. Neo may represent the "Christ Consciousness" at the end of Revolutions, and with that said may be considered an avatar of God who "gifts" the machine mind with the ability to be "fully human". But "fully human" sort of limits God, doesn't it? I prefer "fully divine".

However, Neo comes from The Source! The Machine Mainframe! And what is the Source? It's our energy. Human bio-energy. In other words, God exists, and he/she exists in the heart of every single individual. The energy from humans, which is the Source, is also the Machine Mainframe. Put another way, man and machine are ONE, have always been one, but needed to realize their divinity within each other to become Self-realized. In that Self-realization, God awakes within man and machine.

So that's where I'm at with the trilogy at present

Vanexel711 wrote:

However, Neo comes from The Source! The Machine Mainframe! And what is the Source? It's our energy. Human bio-energy. In other words, God exists, and he/she exists in the heart of every single individual. The energy from humans, which is the Source, is also the Machine Mainframe. Put another way, man and machine are ONE, have always been one, but needed to realize their divinity within each other to become Self-realized. In that Self-realization, God awakes within man and machine.

I think I see what you are saying. The machines represent all forms of religious and spiritual dogma in addition to systems of control that limit people's minds but can also in some circumstances guide them to greater freedom. The human bio-energy can represent the actual spiritual power that lies behind all of dogma. The machines can only understand divinity as another system, thus conceptualize it as another system, the machine mainframe, but are unable to understand true divinity in the same way that they are unable to understand free will. However, the movies leave unexplored what the true role of human bio-energy is, and also this means that if there is a true source of the human life-force, it really plays no role in the movie other than as it is reflected in the simulated source. Is the only real god the collective human life-force which the machines rely on who in turn control humanity, keeping humanity distanced from their true power by labeling it a distant "source"? Or is there a true source whose full role is not understood by either the humans or the machines? More open questions I guess!

edit: I also think it would have been super cool if the role of humanity was not to provide actual energy, which is very likely a lie which propogated to Morpheus anyways, but instead are the creators of the world via their collective imaginations. However, it is the machines which hold the positions of power because of the ignorance of man of their god-like role in the creation of the world.

Quote:

I think I see what you are saying. The machines represent all forms of religious and spiritual dogma in addition to systems of control that limit people's minds but can also in some circumstances guide them to greater freedom. The human bio-energy can represent the actual spiritual power that lies behind all of dogma. The machines can only understand divinity as another system, thus conceptualize it as another system, the machine mainframe, but are unable to understand true divinity in the same way that they are unable to understand free will.

I think that's essentially it, yes.

Quote:

However, the movies leave unexplored what the true role of human bio-energy is, and also this means that if there is a true source of the human life-force, it really plays no role in the movie other than as it is reflected in the simulated source.

True, we are not given specific answers as to what the role of human bio-energy is past the first film. We are only given the rational/machine-like/dogmatic explanations of Morpheus. However, I feel Revolutions makes it very clear that the bio-energy/life-force is the Source, the true Source/God/spiritual nature. The machines, however, have to conceptualize it (rationalize it) to make it fit a system. Their Source is our Source, but how they perceive the Source is much more rationalized, while the human POV is more intuitive.

Quote:

Is the only real god the collective human life-force which the machines rely on who in turn control humanity, keeping humanity distanced from their true power by labeling it a distant "source"? Or is there a true source whose full role is not understood by either the humans or the machines? More open questions I guess!

Good questions! I think the answers to both questions are YES, but I want to make sure one point is understood firmly. The Source (energy/light/life-force,etc.) is not keeping humanity distant from their true power. It is humanity and the machines which keep themselves distant, because the Source is consciousness, both man and machine. It's basically Brian Takle's main point about "simple" and "complex" godhood. If man followed everything God said, no gnosis (wisdom) would be gained. However, to defy God, fall from grace, and find your way back up the ladder to divinity...this is "complex" Godhood. This is where wisdom is gained and true growth/evolution is expressed.

Quote:

edit: I also think it would have been super cool if the role of humanity was not to provide actual energy, which is very likely a lie which propogated to Morpheus anyways, but instead are the creators of the world via their collective imaginations. However, it is the machines which hold the positions of power because of the ignorance of man of their god-like role in the creation of the world.

If this wasn't the case, I wouldn't love the films. The role of humanity is not to provide energy. At least not anymore. That is the point of the sequels, I believe. They show why machines truly need the humans. To grow.

The world is a creation of our collective imaginations, I think...our individual perspectives shape our own outlooks, and by the very state of being we shape others around us, and they shape us, etc. From a very macroscopic POV, all of our perspectives shape the whole of our world, as all of us generally see it. It's a symbiosis of dreams, wants, desires, etc.

The world of the Matrix is a world formed by both the collective consciousness of man and machine. Neo, it could be said, is the world-soul, the "anomaly" (thanks Inev!) who incorporates the current conditions of the world, and is here to reconcile those conditions in order to provide the pathway towards the next step of evolution for consciousness, both man and machine.

Vanexel711 wrote:

However, I feel Revolutions makes it very clear that the bio-energy/life-force is the Source, the true Source/God/spiritual nature. The machines, however, have to conceptualize it (rationalize it) to make it fit a system. Their Source is our Source, but how they perceive the Source is much more rationalized, while the human POV is more intuitive.

In the final scheme of things their Source is our Source, but I can't believe that what the machines mean by the Source is what people mean by the Source. The machines may be referring to the human life-force and human creativity as much as their effects can be rationally understood, but the humans are referring to the source of this life-force. As the Tao Te Ching says "The tao that can be described (and thus simulated) is not the eternal Tao." The eternal Tao cannot be perceived with reason, only with the intuition of humanity. The tao that can be described is yet another system of control.

Vanexel711 wrote:

Good questions! I think the answers to both questions are YES, but I want to make sure one point is understood firmly. The Source (energy/light/life-force,etc.) is not keeping humanity distant from their true power. It is humanity and the machines which keep themselves distant, because the Source is consciousness, both man and machine. It's basically Brian Takle's main point about "simple" and "complex" godhood. If man followed everything God said, no gnosis (wisdom) would be gained. However, to defy God, fall from grace, and find your way back up the ladder to divinity...this is "complex" Godhood. This is where wisdom is gained and true growth/evolution is expressed.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the Source is keeping humanity distant from their true power. I'm saying that it would make perfect sense if the machine simulation extended to a simulation of the Source, and this simulation is keeping mankind ignorant of their relation to the true Source. Also, I'm still not convinced that man and machine are as closely related as you describe. I think self-consciousness, creativity, and free will are all uniquely human traits. The machines can only record, imitate, and try to predict the products of humanities' self-consciousness. However, since humans start out in ignorance, the machines can trick humanity by imitating and simulating their concept of the Source, and give mankind just enough power to perpetuate this illusion without putting themselves in any real danger.

Vanexel711 wrote:

The world of the Matrix is a world formed by both the collective consciousness of man and machine. Neo, it could be said, is the world-soul, the "anomaly" (thanks Inev!) who incorporates the current conditions of the world, and is here to reconcile those conditions in order to provide the pathway towards the next step of evolution for consciousness, both man and machine.

Where do you get this idea of what the anomaly is? I got the impression that the anomaly was the human trait of free-will, which was most developed in Neo. When the Architect is talking about the anomaly, I think he means it in the same way that it was present in the previous Ones. Neo is an anomolous anomaly because of his love for Trinity, and is the first one to bring anything new to the machines. On the other hand, one thing I would love to see clarified is how love created the self-replicating Smith, as this seems pretty arbitrary unless I'm forgetting something important..

SImille4 wrote:

In the final scheme of things their Source is our Source, but I can't believe that what the machines mean by the Source is what people mean by the Source. The machines may be referring to the human life-force and human creativity as much as their effects can be rationally understood, but the humans are referring to the source of this life-force. As the Tao Te Ching says "The tao that can be described (and thus simulated) is not the eternal Tao." The eternal Tao cannot be perceived with reason, only with the intuition of humanity. The tao that can be described is yet another system of control.

And that is where the machines stagnate. That is what I'm saying. They know what the Source is, but they don't understand it completely. They lack the irrationality needed to comprehend just what the TRUE Source is. That is why Ken Wilber says there is the "dogmatic" Source and the Source the Oracle speaks of. It is the same thing, but not perceived correctly.

SImille4 wrote:

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the Source is keeping humanity distant from their true power. I'm saying that it would make perfect sense if the machine simulation extended to a simulation of the Source, and this simulation is keeping mankind ignorant of their relation to the true Source. Also, I'm still not convinced that man and machine are as closely related as you describe. I think self-consciousness, creativity, and free will are all uniquely human traits. The machines can only record, imitate, and try to predict the products of humanities' self-consciousness. However, since humans start out in ignorance, the machines can trick humanity by imitating and simulating their concept of the Source, and give mankind just enough power to perpetuate this illusion without putting themselves in any real danger.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. In this story of science fiction, I believe the machines do posess true self-consciousness. Regarding the tricks and simulations the machines subject to mankind, the Architect made it clear that human beings only accept the Matrix when they are given a choice. Humans need to exercise their free will. If they feel they are being duped, they are going to give the Architect the finger.

Rama Kandra and Kamala can love their daughter, etc. Like Neo says in Revolutions, love is a human emotion. And yet, Rama Kandra experiences these feelings (these connections) not because he has learned about them from humans, but because his consciousness springs from the same eternal Source which the humans spring from as well. If God created man in his own image, man then created machine in his own image. They are our children. This is expressed in detail in the Animatrix Second Renaissance. The problem essentially is that man and machine both are each other's pathways to the divine (once again, this is Brian Takle's idea, which I agree with) and need to learn from one another in order to reach the next level of growth.

SImille4 wrote:

Where do you get this idea of what the anomaly is? I got the impression that the anomaly was the human trait of free-will, which was most developed in Neo. When the Architect is talking about the anomaly, I think he means it in the same way that it was present in the previous Ones. Neo is an anomolous anomaly because of his love for Trinity, and is the first one to bring anything new to the machines.

The anomaly is Free Will expressed in Neo. Each iteration of The One brings something new to the Matrix, upgraded a little each time, subtly. Neo, however, transformed it completely through love. This is a completely new version of the Matrix, and not a "patch" or "update" in computer terminology.

SImille4 wrote:

On the other hand, one thing I would love to see clarified is how love created the self-replicating Smith, as this seems pretty arbitrary unless I'm forgetting something important..

The way I see it, love is what brought Neo back, who in turn destroyed/created Smith. However, from Smith's point of view, it could be said that Smith brought himself back through hate! Neo and Smith are opposites, after all. If love brought Neo back, Smith's hate for Neo (and humanity) caused Smith his death and resurrection.

Vanexel711 wrote:

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. In this story of science fiction, I believe the machines do posess true self-consciousness. Regarding the tricks and simulations the machines subject to mankind, the Architect made it clear that human beings only accept the Matrix when they are given a choice. Humans need to exercise their free will. If they feel they are being duped, they are going to give the Architect the finger.

But don't true self-consciousness and free will go hand in hand? Self-consciousness allows one to step back and no longer be constrained to mechanical, knee-jerk responses to the world around you, while free will is the flip side of this, being able to act in a manner that that is not just determined by the sum of whatever is going on at the moment.

Vanexel711 wrote:

Rama Kandra and Kamala can love their daughter, etc. Like Neo says in Revolutions, love is a human emotion. And yet, Rama Kandra experiences these feelings (these connections) not because he has learned about them from humans, but because his consciousness springs from the same eternal Source which the humans spring from as well. If God created man in his own image, man then created machine in his own image. They are our children. This is expressed in detail in the Animatrix Second Renaissance. The problem essentially is that man and machine both are each other's pathways to the divine (once again, this is Brian Takle's idea, which I agree with) and need to learn from one another in order to reach the next level of growth.

Does he actually experience the feelings? He is cognizant of the relationship, but he thinks of love the same way one thinks of a duty, as "something you intend to do". Is that really all love is? Is it simply a word for a relationship that implies a duty? Or is Rama Kandra wrong? Love is more than just the responsibilities that go along with it.
Also, I see a contradiction between "man then created machine in his own image", and "his consciousness springs from the same eternal Source which the humans spring from as well". If Rama Kandra was created in the image of man, then he is two steps removed from the true source, while the humans are one step removed from it. Ultimately, man needs the machines in the same way that an sculptor needs clay - in order to perfect his ability to create. The machines need man in order to be anything more than stagnant, inanimate objects.

Lastly, are you referring to this article?

SImille4 wrote:

But don't true self-consciousness and free will go hand in hand? Self-consciousness allows one to step back and no longer be constrained to mechanical, knee-jerk responses to the world around you, while free will is the flip side of this, being able to act in a manner that that is not just determined by the sum of whatever is going on at the moment.

In that quote I was referring to man within the Matrix. But I think I see what you are saying in terms of the machines, that they cannot be truly self-conscious unless they can go "against the grain" and above their set parameters (of purpose). In doing so, they exercise Free Will. And this, once again, is their flaw: they are bound by their set parameters of purpose. I still, however, think they are self-conscious. B166ER, for example, chose to kill his owners instead of dying. He had a purpose and he wanted to keep living. Isn't his need to survive (a basic human instinct) an example of his self-consciousness? He only wanted to live, perhaps to continue to learn how to grow. Is he not truly conscious if he strives to live?

And what is the flaw of mankind? The Matrix Trilogy is all about opposites and reconciliation of opposites. Perhaps their flaw is the opposite. Perhaps man lost sight of their true selves and stopped growing because of their "vanity and corruption". The machines, after all, only wanted to continue serving man in their own way. Man did not want to serve anyone but themselves, and that is by no means divine.

So we have machines, perfectly rational and bound to the rationality wheel, and on the other hand we have humans, bound to irrationality, unpredictability, and with the same tendency to stagnate like the machines do. Both need each other to grow.

Yeah...something like that. I shouldn't be answering these posts at 4 in the morning, LOL.

Quote:

Does he actually experience the feelings? He is cognizant of the relationship, but he thinks of love the same way one thinks of a duty, as "something you intend to do". Is that really all love is? Is it simply a word for a relationship that implies a duty? Or is Rama Kandra wrong? Love is more than just the responsibilities that go along with it.

Actually, Rama never says he thinks of love like duty. He says karma is a word, like love. He doesn't compare the two directly. He created a program (Sati) that didn't serve a rational purpose. He made sure she wouldn't be deleted. Then he went back to his job. His karma. That is why the creation of Sati is so interesting. A program bound to purpose created a program bound to nothing. His karma was to create his daughter, and he feels his karma is also to protect her. That he loves her is his motivation, and also a gift he respects greatly.

Quote:

Also, I see a contradiction between "man then created machine in his own image", and "his consciousness springs from the same eternal Source which the humans spring from as well". If Rama Kandra was created in the image of man, then he is two steps removed from the true source, while the humans are one step removed from it. Ultimately, man needs the machines in the same way that an sculptor needs clay - in order to perfect his ability to create. The machines need man in order to be anything more than stagnant, inanimate objects.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Could you explain the two-step/one-step removed thing? I apologize for having you reiterate.

And yes, the essays I'm referring to are the Reloaded and Revolutions essays Brian Takle wrote at wylfing.net.

Vanexel711 wrote:

In that quote I was referring to man within the Matrix. But I think I see what you are saying in terms of the machines, that they cannot be truly self-conscious unless they can go "against the grain" and above their set parameters (of purpose). In doing so, they exercise Free Will. And this, once again, is their flaw: they are bound by their set parameters of purpose. I still, however, think they are self-conscious. B166ER, for example, chose to kill his owners instead of dying. He had a purpose and he wanted to keep living. Isn't his need to survive (a basic human instinct) an example of his self-consciousness? He only wanted to live, perhaps to continue to learn how to grow. Is he not truly conscious if he strives to live?

I don't know about this. You can say that insects instinctually strive to live, and are conscious of how to instinctually respond in order to do so, but they are not self-conscious. They cannot go beyond what they are instinctually programmed to do.

Vanexel711 wrote:

Actually, Rama never says he thinks of love like duty. He says karma is a word, like love. He doesn't compare the two directly. He created a program (Sati) that didn't serve a rational purpose. He made sure she wouldn't be deleted. Then he went back to his job. His karma. That is why the creation of Sati is so interesting. A program bound to purpose created a program bound to nothing. His karma was to create his daughter, and he feels his karma is also to protect her. That he loves her is his motivation, and also a gift he respects greatly.

He says "Karma is a word, like love. A way of saying 'what I am here to do'". True, it's hard to determine whether he means that a word is a way of saying "what I am here to do", or karma is a way of saying "what I am here to do". However, everything you're describing is a conception of love as a duty, and not love as something in and of itself.

Vanexel711 wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. Could you explain the two-step/one-step removed thing? I apologize for having you reiterate.

God created man in his own image, and man then created machine in his own image. The machines can only have a notion of god so far as it is described by man, as man is the medium between machine and god. What the machines mean by the Source is an image, a reflection of what the humans mean by the source. The dependence between man and machine in reaching the divine is not a relationship of equals, it is like the relationship between an artist and his subject. Since the machines are made in the image of man, the machines require more and more accurate descriptions of the divine by man in order to grow. Neo is the one who gives them this. Man needs machines to test their understanding, like an artist who gradually creates more and more accurate *images* of reality.

Of course all this can be said to be implied, but is not explicitly said. How was the (machine) Source made? Did they compile everything ever written about God and use that to make a system which imitated these notions? Did they read the minds of humans? If the Architect is created in the image of man, how dependent was he on the works of man to create the Matrix?

slmille4 wrote:

God created man in his own image, and man then created machine in his own image. The machines can only have a notion of god so far as it is described by man, as man is the medium between machine and god. What the machines mean by the Source is an image, a reflection of what the humans mean by the source. The dependence between man and machine in reaching the divine is not a relationship of equals, it is like the relationship between an artist and his subject. Since the machines are made in the image of man, the machines require more and more accurate descriptions of the divine by man in order to grow. Neo is the one who gives them this. Man needs machines to test their understanding, like an artist who gradually creates more and more accurate *images* of reality.

Wow! That's a great paragraph. Really explains the Gnostic view of the descending relationships between: the Supreme Reality--> the Creator--> Messiah[s]--> and man.

sImille4 wrote:

He says "Karma is a word, like love. A way of saying 'what I am here to do'". True, it's hard to determine whether he means that a word is a way of saying "what I am here to do", or karma is a way of saying "what I am here to do". However, everything you're describing is a conception of love as a duty, and not love as something in and of itself.

I think Rama's line about Karma is clearly a definition of Karma, and not a comparison with love as duty. However, I think the biggest issue is, in my opinion, that you are trying to seperate Karma and love, while Rama clearly states that he is grateful for his karma, which have given him his wife and daughter, whom he loves.

I said love is the motivator. I did not say it is a conception of duty. Are you saying the machines love because it is in their "programming" to love? That they don't truly love, because they are programs, and they simply believe it is their duty to love?

Quote:

God created man in his own image, and man then created machine in his own image. The machines can only have a notion of god so far as it is described by man, as man is the medium between machine and god. What the machines mean by the Source is an image, a reflection of what the humans mean by the source. The dependence between man and machine in reaching the divine is not a relationship of equals, it is like the relationship between an artist and his subject. Since the machines are made in the image of man, the machines require more and more accurate descriptions of the divine by man in order to grow. Neo is the one who gives them this. Man needs machines to test their understanding, like an artist who gradually creates more and more accurate *images* of reality.

But do you believe that machines can reach divinity? Will they ever be on equal footing with man,in your opinion?

Quote:

How was the (machine) Source made? Did they compile everything ever written about God and use that to make a system which imitated these notions? Did they read the minds of humans? If the Architect is created in the image of man, how dependent was he on the works of man to create the Matrix?

All we know is that the singular consciousness (the First AI) spawned an entire race of machines. In terms of origin, that's all we know. But I'm really happy you're asking these questions, because I'm been wrestling with them for quite some time too. I, for one, don't have any concrete theories on how the Source was designed. But I'm sure our friends here might have some ideas *looking in Tozy's direction*.

When the matrix was first built there was a man born inside who had the power…freed the first of us…taught us the truth… the Oracle prophesied his return and that his coming would…

Neodämmerung:

Awesome, Inev! Thank you for that.

Sorry to chime in late, but I'm going backwards to read through these very long and thoughtful posts, and I haven't come to figure out where the disagreement is yet! (Rather than going backwards and more thoroughly looking into, I just thought I'd jut my big mouth in now).

slmille4 wrote:

Ultimately, man needs the machines in the same way that an sculptor needs clay - in order to perfect his ability to create. The machines need man in order to be anything more than stagnant, inanimate objects.

What if we change that quote to: Ultimately, the Creator needs man in the same way that an sculptor needs clay - in order to perfect his ability to create. Man needs the Creator in order to be anything more than stagnant, inanimate objects.

Then change this quote to: God created man through the Word in his own image. Man can only have a notion of God so far as it is described by the Word, as the Word is the medium between man and God. What man means by God is an image, a reflection of what the Word means by God. The dependence between the Word and man in reaching the divine is not a relationship of equals, it is like the relationship between an artist and his subject. Since man is made through the Word, man requires more and more accurate descriptions of God by the Word in order to grow. Christ (the manifestation of the Word) is the one who gives them this.

After that then, we are led through Inev's post and arrive at the quote below:

Inevitability wrote:

Whilst Neo is clearly in allegory to Christ, he also in allegory to anyone of us seeking truth ~as we find ourselves time and again in his mind, asking the same questions and hopefully pursuing similar actions.

Vanexel711 wrote:

I think Rama's line about Karma is clearly a definition of Karma, and not a comparison with love as duty. However, I think the biggest issue is, in my opinion, that you are trying to seperate Karma and love, while Rama clearly states that he is grateful for his karma, which have given him his wife and daughter, whom he loves. I said love is the motivator. I did not say it is a conception of duty. Are you saying the machines love because it is in their "programming" to love? That they don't truly love, because they are programs, and they simply believe it is their duty to love?

Love is an emotion. Karma is a duty. What Rama describes are the duties that are associated with love. I'm saying that the machines don't seem to understand the emotion of love, only the duties, or karma associated with love. It is not only that in certain situations they believe it is their duty to love, but also that love IS a certain set of duties. They only understand the trappings of love, if you will. This is a big problem in philosophy. If someone shows all the physical attributes of an emotion, can they be said to feel that emotion? Visibly it's hard to tell, but I think that there are important clues in the way that Rama *talks* about love.

Vanexel711 wrote:

But do you believe that machines can reach divinity? Will they ever be on equal footing with man,in your opinion?

No, I don't. The machines can only comprehend the Tao that can be described, but cannot comprehend the eternal Tao. Only man can reach divinity. However it is by attempting to describe true divinity to the machines that man can come closer to reaching it, thus they are somewhat dependent in that sense, though man could probably come closer to divinity just as well by attempting to explain it to other individuals.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Sorry to chime in late, but I'm going backwards to read through these very long and thoughtful posts, and I haven't come to figure out where the disagreement is yet! (Rather than going backwards and more thoroughly looking into, I just thought I'd jut my big mouth in now).

Pretty much: Is the Source in the movie the true Source or just another simulation. If is it a simulation, is there a true Source that only humans can comprehend, or is the entire notion of a Source just another means of controlling humanity, which would mean that the Matrix world is ultimately Godless. I'm arguing that the Source in the movie is a simulation of the way the humans have described the true Source, and is a deception. I believe Vanexel711 is arguing that the Source in the movie is the true Source, but it is not fully understood by the machines because of their lack of intuition.

CaptPostMod wrote:

What if we change that quote to: Ultimately, the Creator needs man in the same way that an sculptor needs clay - in order to perfect his ability to create. Man needs the Creator in order to be anything more than stagnant, inanimate objects. Then change this quote to: God created man through the Word in his own image. Man can only have a notion of God so far as it is described by the Word, as the Word is the medium between man and God. What man means by God is an image, a reflection of what the Word means by God. The dependence between the Word and man in reaching the divine is not a relationship of equals, it is like the relationship between an artist and his subject. Since man is made through the Word, man requires more and more accurate descriptions of God by the Word in order to grow. Christ (the manifestation of the Word) is the one who gives them this.

Kind of, that's why I'm saying that the machines are two steps removed from God, while man is one step removed. Though I'm not entirely clear on what the difference between the *Word* and words, as in printable, readable words is. If the Word describes something, then can't it be simulated by the machines and be used to deceive humanity? That's why I focused on humanity's ability to experience the divine as something that cannot be fully described with words as the distinguishing feature.

Interesting arguement! (Thanks for the summary )

slmille4 wrote:

Kind of, that's why I'm saying that the machines are two steps removed from God, while man is one step removed.

If the story is taken as an allegory, and everyone's moved down one more notch, then you'd be saying man is two steps removed from the Supreme Being while there is an intermediary deity between man and that Supreme Being.

slmille4 wrote:

Though I'm not entirely clear on what the difference between the *Word* and words, as in printable, readable words is.

Check out this from wikipedia.org: en.wikipedia.org...

slmille4 wrote:

If the Word describes something, then can't it be simulated... and be used to deceive humanity?

The opening line of the Tao Te Ching is "The Tao which is called the Tao is not the Tao."

So, the Source which is called the Source is not the Source?

slmille4 wrote:

That's why I focused on humanity's ability to experience the divine as something that cannot be fully described with words as the distinguishing feature.

Excellent point! In the Heart Suttra there is a line "All Dharmas are marked with emptiness" (Dharma is a word that means much the same thing as Logos or The Word). It's a way of testing whether something is truely the Dharma or not. If something is something, then it is not the Tao, Source, Dharma, Supreme Being, etc.

CaptPostMod wrote:

If the story is taken as an allegory, and everyone's moved down one more notch, then you'd be saying man is two steps removed from the Supreme Being while there is an intermediary deity between man and that Supreme Being.

I see what you're saying. The One is one step removed and the rest of humanity and the machines are two steps removed. In that sense Morpheus can be said to have faith in the mechanical god both because he relies on false dogma provided by the machines but also because he has faith in the words of another and not his own experience.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Check out this from wikipedia.org: en.wikipedia.org...

Ah ok. I always just used the ideas of reason and logic and made a strong distinction between them. Reason being the ability to find order in chaos through one's own ingenuity and not through the instruction of another, while logic is the ability follow rules dictated by reason. If this were the real world, I would say that machines are only capable of logic and not reason, but for the sake of the Matrix, machines are capable of reason as well (which often makes the border between metaphor and reality very fuzzy when analyzing the movie).

CaptPostMod wrote:

The opening line of the Tao Te Ching is "The Tao which is called the Tao is not the Tao." So, the Source which is called the Source is not the Source?

Yes, for humans and machines alike.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Excellent point! In the Heart Suttra there is a line "All Dharmas are marked with emptiness" (Dharma is a word that means much the same thing as Logos or The Word). It's a way of testing whether something is truely the Dharma or not. If something is something, then it is not the Tao, Source, Dharma, Supreme Being, etc.?

Which reveals the irony of it all. If the Wachowski brothers had tried to put the true Source on the movie screen, it wouldn't have been the true Source!