»There is no MWAM. The explanation for Neo's powers is this:«

Gina Rink wrote:

intell wrote: No offense, Max, but all I see you doing is picking sides as if there is a side, with no clue as to what the participants are saying. Please, no more, my sides can't take it. LOL! Intell, don't you get it? Max is "that guy". Ever wonder why some professors just seem to have a pole up their asses. Or, the some people in the office who just won't shut the fuck up about themselves. Or, the kid who wants to increase everyone else's homework so he can so you how to conjugate in Latin. There's always that person who you have to ask "What the fuck is 'that guy's' problem?" In every case, "That guy's" problem is he can't tell the difference between reality and his bullshit. And, this tactic is dependent on the people he's around not knowing the difference between his bullshit and reality. This how you get someone like cap saying crap like, "Duh, you don't get the nondualistic thing...duh". When he doesn't understand it himself.

Aw, look at the 'enlightened' girl, making posts constituted entirely of personal attacks

Silly rabbit

Kalki wrote:

We are not here because we are free, we are here because we are not free.

Yer damn right

Okie dokie, I think I've had my fill of Matrix geek outs for the time being. My Easter break (a study-leave unfulfilled, let's call it) is now over, and it's time to hit the books. Hard.

I'll be absent until at least the end of May / beginning of June and - assuming I remember how much Gina and Intell bring a constant source of pant-wetting laughter into my life - I'll be back here after that, as long as I'm not in India by then. If I am, then I'll pop in when I get back.

Alrighty then...MAX out

max314 wrote:

Okie dokie, I think I've had my fill of Matrix geek outs for the time being. My Easter break (a study-leave unfulfilled, let's call it) is now over, and it's time to hit the books. Hard. I'll be absent until at least the end of May / beginning of June and - assuming I remember how much Gina and Intell bring a constant source of pant-wetting laughter into my life - I'll be back here after that, as long as I'm not in India by then. If I am, then I'll pop in when I get back. Alrighty then...MAX out

Raise your hand if you didn't see this one coming. Max hauling out again, the moment he sees where his words are going.

tozy wrote:

Well, my approach to the technical level is through the spiritual, and that's why I believe that the Matrix is located in the machine city: I agree with you that the Matrix, as we see it in the movies, represents the mind separated from spirit. But even if the mind is separated from spirit, it is not a separate entity. Rather, the separation is due to non-awareness, or delusion -> sense of "I". (Even though the mind has to be stilled, because we think as an "I", it is not excluded from spirit awareness, because it is a part of the whole.) For that reason, I believe, that the SciFi-world Matrix Universe, which I understand as a metaphor for the condition of human consciousness as it is today, gives us both: -> the separation between mind and spirit, expressed in the two locations pods and machine city. -> and spirit as the underlying reality of mind, in that what seem to be two systems, are essentially one system nested in the other. Which gets us to... intell wrote: How does your model show how a Source containing a matrix is influence by the operation of the matrix? Vice versa? Atoms are not merely nested into molecules, they form them by being grouped together. I must have missed the interdependent relationship you put into your model that shows how the Source is comprised of things working together. It's all a matter of definition : ...notice that the Great Chain, as conceived by its proponents (from Plotinus to Aurobindo), is indeed more of a Great Nest—or what is often called a "holarchy"—because each senior level goes beyond its junior levels but envelopes them (or "nests" them)—what Plotinus called "a development that is envelopment." Each higher level, however, also radically transcends its juniors and can neither be reduced to its juniors nor explained by them. This is indicated in figure 1 as (A), (A + B), (A + B + C), and so on, which means that each senior level contains elements or qualities that are emergent and nonreducible. For example, when life (A + B) emerges "out of" matter (A), it contains certain qualities (such as sexual reproduction, interior emotions, autopoiesis, élan vital, etc.—all represented by "B") that cannot be accounted for in strictly the material terms of "A." Likewise, when mind ("A + B + C") emerges out of life, mind contains emergent characteristics ("C") that cannot be reduced to, nor explained by, life and matter alone. When soul ("A + B + C + D") emerges, it transcends mind and life and body. Evolution, then, is this "unfolding" of Spirit from matter to body to mind to soul to Spirit itself, or the realization of the absolute Spirit that was the Goal and Ground of the entire sequence. - wilber.shambhala.com... This is preceeded by involution, as described at the beginning of my essay... (matrix-architekt.de...) And since I understand the source as the human soul on it's path back towards The Source... as in... According to Hinduism, man is essentially a soul that walks the path of return from the many to the One in a sequence of lives (death -> rebirth). ... it makes sense to me that the One brings his experiences to the source upon returning to it (whatever way...), thus "influencing" the source.

Excuse me for a second, Tozy. But as much as you and Max would like to believe you agree with each other, do you see a big difference in what he and you say about the relationship between the matrix and the Source. For instance, your model puts Zion smack-dab in Machine City and I really believe Max would not. And inside the matrix, no less. I would be very interested in seeing further attempts at reconciling the two viewpoints and models thereof.

Another example would be whether Machine City is where the Source can be found or actually IS the Source. I think its like the difference of saying whether a person/being has a body or is a body. Where is consciousness located?

Nobody claims that we agree with each other in all points. How could I when I understand only half of the technical discussion in this thread?
We agree however that...

1. Max should be allowed his own approach to the Matrix without being declared mentally insane or an asshole
2. There is a differentiation between map and landscape:

When I give you the example of...

He who knows all, and whose glory the universe shows, dwells as the spirit of the divine city of Brahman in the region of the human heart (...) There the wise find him as joy and light and life eternal. (Mundaka Upanishad)

...it is, of course, not a description of where Brahman can be found, but how. In that respect...

intell wrote:

He who knows all is not the heart but can be found there.

No! There is no location of Brahman. The where is the metaphorical expression of how.

Same goes for the Matrix movies:
I think Max and I agree that the Matrix Universe is a map of consciousness. And the different worlds/locations, and how they are being perceived, are an expression of different states of consciousness.
And just as you would not declare Max mentally insane if he told you that blue paint on a piece of paper is not the ocean, but serves as a symbol for the ocean, there is no need to do so when it comes to the Matrix movies, even if one disagrees.

As for "my" model: it is based on where the brothers have placed the different locations/worlds, as in (click)...

tozy wrote:

We agree however that... 1. Max should be allowed his own approach to the Matrix without being declared mentally insane or an asshole.

A right that, of course, from the OP to his first encounter with dissent on a spiritual explanation of "Neo's powers", he has never extended to anyone but himself. I believe he used the terms "nutter", nut-job, hippie, etc. and those are only the PG-rated epithets. So if that is the tone of the thread, I was thinking that allowance didn't exist here.

max314(in the original version of the post) wrote:

I'm somewhat appalled that this ridiculous MWAM theory (probably standing for Most Wankerfied Analysis in Memory) is even being discussed. There was no 'second Matrix'. No 'hidden level'. No fucking Matrix-within-a-Matrix-within-a-Matrix-within-a-Matrix-within-a-Matrix. To save time, I'll cut and paste an earlier explanation from a different site. I was here back in July, I believe, and I addressed this same issue then. Why the living hell this fucking flame hasn't died out yet I can only attribute to some great plague of stupidity among certain people. It's like inventing a building that was never fucking there in the first place and saying "but, if you look closely enough, that tree sort of resembles a building...hence it must be a building!"

tozy wrote:

When I give you the example of... He who knows all, and whose glory the universe shows, dwells as the spirit of the divine city of Brahman in the region of the human heart (...) There the wise find him as joy and light and life eternal. (Mundaka Upanishad) ...it is, of course, not a description of where Brahman can be found, but how. In that respect... intell wrote: He who knows all is not the heart but can be found there. No! There is no location of Brahman. The where is the metaphorical expression of how.

Yes! I didn't give it a location, either, but continued your metaphorical expression of how.

So does the Source have a location? You said, "Machine City". Where else? You see, max, continues to apply being related to the Source with glowing, which is being seen (or TOUCHED) far away from the City. Whereas he is loathe to venturing into expressing what that relationship actually is. So, what do you say it is?

tozy wrote:

And just as you would not declare Max mentally insane if he told you that blue paint on a piece of paper is not the ocean, but serves as a symbol for the ocean, there is no need to do so when it comes to the Matrix movies, even if one disagrees.

max314 wrote:

The Matrix and the Machine Mainframe (a.k.a. the "Machine City", "the Source") run on independent-but-interconnected operating systems. In the movies, those interconnections have taken the form of the Architect's chamber (legitimate) and Mobil Avenue (illegitimate).

max314 wrote:

Oh, you were talking about the opening sequence. All it showed to me was that the machine mainframe and the Matrix are connected. Which we know.

But now, he's saying that they're not connected but concentric? Not only that but that the opening sequence of Revolutions helps to prove it.

Max's sanity is called into question for his inconsistencies in his own theories that are plain to everyone but him, while he is quick to jump on me when I let him believe it was the other way around. References, why Thomas couldn't see the Logos or Trinity, the Architect's words on "design", why the prime program is NOT the matrix, need I list more?

When he thinks he has his dissenters in a compromising situation, he sure has a lot to say. But when he sees that it is he, who is 'dead to rights', then it's 'a horse of another colour'. And this leads us to the following:

tozy wrote:

I think Max and I agree that the Matrix Universe is a map of consciousness. And the different worlds/locations, and how they are being perceived, are an expression of different states of consciousness.

If you think Max really believes this, why in your opinion, would he attempt to explain what is happening in the story in a context that disregards what you say the story is about?

tozy wrote:

You can't liken this model to Max's, because our approaches are from different angles.

Right. And going in different directions.

intell wrote:

So does the Source have a location? You said, "Machine City". Where else?

Again, my approach to the technical is through the spiritual, which means that I have an interpretation of the spiritual level and need to try and find an adequate translation into the technical. Since I am lousy in the technical, this translation may be somewhat flawed, but I'll try:

The source is everywhere,... as an underlying reality. Just as you are spirit, but unaware of...

T o z y !

Why is it that you all try and explain the matrix through the old theorys or religions. Is the matrix not bringin us a new(Neo) way of looking at the world.

You can not solve a problem in the world it was created in. You have to step into the new world. Yes the matrix does reflect the old thinking on a meta level. But it is a unifyiing theory.

The theory of all the parts roled into one.

the center of the matrix is man. The center of man is his internal world of thought. Sh*te out of time

vieome wrote:

You can not solve a problem in the world it was created in.

That's often the only place you can solve a problem. 'Cause once you're out of the world it exists in, it's no longer a problem and no solution is necessary.

vieome wrote:

T o z y ! Why is it that you all try and explain the matrix through the old theorys or religions. Is the matrix not bringin us a new(Neo) way of looking at the world. You can not solve a problem in the world it was created in. You have to step into the new world. Yes the matrix does reflect the old thinking on a meta level. But it is a unifyiing theory. The theory of all the parts roled into one. the center of the matrix is man. The center of man is his internal world of thought. Sh*te out of time

What is your definition of "new"?
What is your definition of "world"?

tozy wrote:

A program created as part the machine world (without the limitations of the Matrix), within the Matix can be seen as being from the machine world. A program created as part of the Matrix (with the limitations of the matrix), within the Matrix is being seen as part of the Matrix; once it has transcended the Matrix and it's limitations, it's underlying reality shines forth.

1. The matrix, itself, is from the machine world.
2. A program created as part of the matrix is created where?
3. Beings that come from programs that "break down" or are to be replaced that run in the matrix could "return" to the Source. So if they are created within the matrix to begin with, (A.) how can the machine city be called its source? (B.) and/or how can the word return be used regarding somewhere it never was, (C.) or depending how some have postulated never left?
4. Can the matrix transcend itself? No? Then if the matrix exists within machine city, (how) was it visualised by Thomas Anderson, there?

And once again, if Machine City is a how, and not a where, what is the Source and why is it felt and visualised outside of the city?

And what is Thomas' relationship to it?

If you have a graphical programming language (G) written in C code, it is essentially C code, but factually it's own reality.

G has two levels: the graphical level and it's underlying C level.

Each symbol of G is conditioned C code, as such "bound" to the G environment.
But if you have access to G's underlying C code, you can "free" a symbol and "release/return" it to the wholeness of C code.

This is a very simplified (and propabely not quite accurately explained... ) analogy for the relationship of machine city and Matrix, as I understand it.

intell wrote:

1. The matrix, itself, is from the machine world.

Yes, code-wise, and this is imo emphazised by this sequence from the Revolutions intro (click)...

intell wrote:

tozy wrote: A program created as part the machine world (without the limitations of the Matrix), within the Matix can be seen as being from the machine world. A program created as part of the Matrix (with the limitations of the matrix), within the Matrix is being seen as part of the Matrix; once it has transcended the Matrix and it's limitations, it's underlying reality shines forth. 1. The matrix, itself, is from the machine world. 2. A program created as part of the matrix is created where? 3. Beings that come from programs that "break down" or are to be replaced that run in the matrix could "return" to the Source. So if they are created within the matrix to begin with, (A.) how can the machine city be called its source? (B.) and/or how can the word return be used regarding somewhere it never was, (C.) or depending how some have postulated never left? 4. Can the matrix transcend itself? No? Then if the matrix exists within machine city, (how) was it visualised by Thomas Anderson, there? And once again, if Machine City is a how, and not a where, what is the Source and why is it felt and visualised outside of the city? And what is Thomas' relationship to it?

Tozy, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me you were trying to explain a program's PURPOSE in relation to the Matrix as opposed to WHERE it was created. You gave the example of a "program created as part the machine world (without the limitations of the Matrix)." An example of this would be the General from the Matrix Online game. He was recently revealed to be the main squiddy in the final attack on Zion in Matrix Revolutions. So here we have a program that originally resided in the Real inside a robotic body. This robotic body, as you described, was free of the limitations of the Matrix. He was OUTSIDE the Matrix. Later, he shed his robotic body and created an avatar for himself inside the Matrix, which is where he now resides. But if Neo were to look at him, he would probably be able to recognize that he came from the Machine world, not the Matrix. In other words, the General is LOCATED in the Matrix and ORIGINATED in the Source (like ALL programs are), but his original PURPOSE was in the Machine world and not the Matrix.

The opposite of that would be the agents, who also originated in the Source, but their purpose was connected to the Matrix. They never existed in the Real--only the Matrix. Therefore, even though an agent originated in the Source--just like the General--the source code of the two would appear different to Neo because of their PURPOSE and ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENT LOCATION.

So here's the rundown in case I didn't explain that very well:

AGENT
Originated: the Source
Assigned to: the Matrix
Ever existed in Real: no
Ever existed in Matrix: yes

THE GENERAL
Originated: the Source
Assigned to: the Real
Ever existed in Real: yes
Ever existed in Matrix: yes

Does that sum it up? And by the way, you can see that Agent Smith would be the opposite of the General. He existed first in the Matrix, but because of something from Neo being overwritten onto him, he was able to exist in the Real as well. So, Agent Smith eventually existed in both worlds but started in the MATRIX and the General existed in both worlds but started in the REAL.

Exactly, Feral!

Thanks, and...

..Welcome back!

tozy wrote:

...Yes, code-wise, and this is imo emphazised by this sequence from the Revolutions intro (click)...

I thought you said this is from delimited spirit to limited spirit.

tozy wrote:

intell wrote: 3. Beings that come from programs that "break down" or are to be replaced that run in the matrix could "return" to the Source. So if they are created within the matrix to begin with, (A.) how can the machine city be called its source? (B.) and/or how can the word return be used regarding somewhere it never was, (C.) or depending how some have postulated never left? See the above G-C analogy.

No. It doesn't seem to fit and be consistent with what is shown. G can't return to the City if it never left the City, regardless of C or any other letter.

tozy wrote:

Quote: 4. Can the matrix transcend itself? No? Then if the matrix exists within machine city, (how) was it visualised by Thomas Anderson, there? What do you mean by that?

It means that since Thomas didn't see any G in the City. So why are you saying G is present, and in what form?

tozy wrote:

intell wrote: And once again, if Machine City is a how, and not a where, what is the Source and why is it felt and visualised outside of the city? In the movies it is a where. But, as I have said repeatedly,... the Matrix Universe imo is a map of consciousness. Each location and how it is perceived does represent a certain state of consciousness. So does machine city. To go there is the how.

If the city is a "where" in the movies, once, again, what is 'feeling the Source, while touching those sentinels?

tozy wrote:

intell wrote: And what is Thomas' relationship to it? The machine city is to Thomas what the divine city of Brahman is to the Upanishad's reader: his essence, the place where he will find ultimate "know thyself".

In addition to what I asked about the sentinels, how would Thomas do this through the Architect's right door?

tozy wrote:

As I said before about this place: The "formed" light (machine city) represents the source (human spirit), and the formless light (Neo in the very end) represents The Source (Spirit Supreme).

And the light that Thomas sees in sentinels far away from the city is what?

tozy wrote:

Exactly, Feral! Thanks, and... ..Welcome back!

You're welcome! And thanks! Tee hee!

Hey, can someone give me a decent laymen's definition of "delimited spirit"? I'm assuming this is similar to "alienated spirit" that Ken Wilber refers to on the DVD commentary for Matrix Revolutions (in reference to Machine City as seen through Neo's eyes). I did a little bit of research and found a book called Cognition by Hegel. In chapter 6 he begins to describe something called a "self-alienated spirit." I didn't get too far into it, because if I'm barking up the wrong tree, I didn't want to get any further into it. Not that I don't want to learn more, mind you, but I wanted to focus on what Wilber was talking about and what you guys are discussing in this thread.

Thanks for that link, intell. That gives me a little bit more to work with. So the laymen's definition of the de-limited spirit is a spirit that has been freed of its limits; in other words, de-limited. And the limits that are placed on the spirit are based on the illusion that a spirit is a separate individual rather than part of a corporate ONE. So when this illusion--the thing that limits the spirit from knowing its true identity--is removed, then satori is accomplished.

And from the little research that I did on the concept of satori, it seems to refer to PERMANENT enlightenment, as opposed to temporary enlightenment. The example given on Wikipedia is of an infant learning to walk. Its initial attempts in which the infant stumbles are temporary. But when it gains the ability to walk and never stumbles again, the infant has achieved satori--a permanent knowledge gained through experience.

In regard to Cartesian dualism, I am currently of the opinion that the mind is not separate from the body. This is based on my interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which indicate that upon death there is no longer knowledge of anything (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, Psalm 6:5). Despite the later Greek influences upon the New Testament church, I do not believe that there is a part of man that is 1) separate from his physical body, or 2) immortal and continues to live on after the physical body dies.

I am betting that if we understood the brain completely, we would see that consciousness is merely a function of the physical brain and that there is no such thing as an immaterial, ethereal "soul" that exists in a spirit world or some such thing. The Hebrew way of thinking is that a soul is what you ARE, not something you HAVE. A soul is the combination of a BODY plus BREATH (the Hebrew word for "spirit" or "wind"). If the body is no longer breathing, it is dead. There is no longer consciousness, and the person ceases to be a soul and becomes a corpse. This is why the Scriptures state that a soul can die (Ezekiel 18:4,20). If the soul were immortal, it would not be able to die.

That being said, I know that the Hebrew viewpoint is not relevant for discussion of the Matrix movies, because it is not the prevalent one. I just thought I'd throw that in as a freebie.

Feral Boy wrote:

Hey, can someone give me a decent laymen's definition of "delimited spirit"?

For something a little different --> scientology.org...

Feral Boy wrote:

The Hebrew way of thinking is that a soul is what you ARE, not something you HAVE.

And for more fun in the same vein--> scientology.org...

CaptPostMod wrote:

Feral Boy wrote: Hey, can someone give me a decent laymen's definition of "delimited spirit"? For something a little different --> scientology.org...

Capt, that is too funny! It reminds me of that "Piece of Blue Sky" storyline from The Matrix Online, where I interpreted the character of Decius Wadsworth as being L. Ron Hubbard (matrix-explained.com...).

That's really awesome, Feral. I keep meaning to write a thread about it and haven't, but I really wonder about the influence of Scientology on the films. There are subtle but interesting little possible Scio references in the Trilogy.

intell wrote:

tozy wrote: ...Yes, code-wise, and this is imo emphazised by this sequence from the Revolutions intro (click)... I thought you said this is from delimited spirit to limited spirit.

This excerpt is already deep into the limited...

As I said in another post:

The source...

Think of an empty vase made of clay.
The space inside the vase is the same as the space outside the vase. But the walls of the vase limit it and cause an absence of light. It is perceived as separate, different and dark -> limited/conditioned by the clay walls.
Once the clay walls are shattered, the space inside the vase - even though it never truly left - can "return" to the space outside the vase.

And now think of an empty vase,... in a room,... in an appartment,... in a house...
It is boxes within boxes, with space being the same, but feeling different due to the walls. With each wall shattered from within, the next bigger box, or underlying reality, can be perceived, which means: space is being perceived as determined by the most inner standing wall.
And once all walls are shattered, space is perceived in it's true form: without limits.

This can be applied to the Revolutions intro excerpt (backward):

A box...

...in a box...

...in a box...

...in a box...

... in a box...

...

In this sequence we learn that the green code is made of yellow code.