Half-a-Hundred and counting
Posts: 53
|
I've had a mash-up of thoughts arising from the MWAM thread and what I've been able to read so far in the 7/7 thread, but rather than post to each of those, I thought I'd start a new thread for anyone who wants to add their own random ideas that might be a little too much off-topic in either of those threads. Other people have expressed similar thoughts to some of what I'm posting here, but to remove those comments would (I think) make this first post even choppier than it already is, so I'll leave them in and beg your indulgence. And though you'll probably all understand that this is only my POV, I'll add the disclaimer that this is how I see things now, based on what I've learned up to now.
CaptPostMod said to max314:
Quote: | | It's fine that you have these overarching and sometimes restrictively dogmatic views on the "science" behind Neo's powers, but then saying that the "science" was the purpose of the story is ridiculous. The "science" is fiction. The story is about Neo's awakening, his freeing of his mind. Whether "literally" or "figuratively" it doesn't matter. That's not the subtext, it is the story. What "science" Neo uses to do that whether supernatural or "natural" is a tangent. Maybe a fun one, but not an overly important one. |
BAM!
"Science" is only our poor attempt to explain the world/universe we see around us; "technology" is only our poor attempt to "improve" on it.
The “science” we’re taught is much censored. Look into how many scientific papers are squelched because they go against the accepted norms. Look into how many archaeological artifacts are hidden away in dusty basements and warehouses because their very existence disproves the timeline of human history that we’re fed in school. Look into how alternative energy sources – especially those having to do with “free” energy – have so often been taken from the developers, never again to see the light of day. If science was free of outside self-interested influences, it might one day actually come close to explaining the truth of our world/universe. But “science” hasn’t been free. First the Church held sway, and look what happened to Copernicus and Galileo. And while the Church’s narrow-viewed and iron-fisted hold on “science” has loosened in the past centuries, it’s since been replaced by the avarice of the corporations that fund so much of our current “science”.
In "real life", you'll find people who are quite content to take things at face value and not feel the need to quest deeper. Some of those people even find the fact that there are others who believe in things unseen and inexplicable, to be ____ (insert adjective of choice: silly, ridiculous, deluded, insane, illogical, unscientific....), and not to be encouraged. Those people are threatened by the idea that there is "more", since their limited views are not equipped to allow for that possibility. That fear might manifest as anger or derision or ridicule, etc, or it might cause them to dig in their heels so hard that they become reactionary and fundamentalist.
Eventually (in this life or in subsequent/parallel ones) they’ll move to a position of at least admitting the possibility that there may be some truth to the unknown. With enough encouragement or external support or personal curiosity, they’ll undertake some exploration, though that might at first be tentative and self-conscious. Maybe they’ll get stuck there, or maybe something will strike a chord in them that will propel them even deeper so that in time they become “others”.
The “others” who do believe in (feel that there is, instinctually know that there is) more, feel that the literal world has too many unknowns and unexplaineds, and they undertake journeys of seeking knowledge to better understand those anomalies and to try to fill the holes in the socially-accepted knowledge base. Likely they'll explore many paths, some of which will be dead ends. But they'll also find paths that lead them ever onward through the layers of what used to be "hidden" knowledge and what is scoffed at by some as "faux-science".
Beyond them, there are yet even more Others: they who not only believe in more, but who've had personal experience of it; experience that can neither be measured by our "science" nor completely duplicated by our "technology".
If those latter types become too vocal or too visible or too numerous within society’s self-imposed restraints, they’re challenged to prove that their experiences are “real” and valid. Some will attempt it, but will be ultimately unsuccessful according to the parameters of what “science” tells us is necessary to “prove” something’s reality. That is because those parameters are usually set at or only a little way beyond what our 5 physical senses can perceive. We move those parameters out further only by small increments at a time (though to most people, those increments might symbolize a huge leap), so sudden and large paradigm shifts become difficult if not impossible for many.
This phenomenon of incremental advances has also been seen in the field of UFO studies, where it has been noted that UFOs through time (our time) have always been just a few steps ahead of what we ourselves have been capable of building. In the late 1800's, they took the form of dirigibles, advancing to cigar and saucer shapes as our own flying machines came to include zepplins. As we advanced to cigar and saucer shapes, they advanced to stealth-type craft. The proverbial carrot on a string.
max 314 said:
Quote: | | You think that a radio is "mythological"? |
Mythological, maybe. Magic, maybe. To those whose paradigms don't include such technology and whose societal knowledge base doesn’t include things like sound waves and radio frequencies, yes.
Myths can be symbols and they can be tools.
Symbols are useful when they are used to focus awareness. Take religious iconography, for instance. Those visual representations, be they marble statues or wooden triptychs or gold idols, are not meant to be worshipped in and of themselves, but rather as representations of something greater. In the same way, the historical figures of Jesus/Mohammed/Buddha/Zoroaster/Mithra are symbolic of a greater message. But, as Joseph Campbell pointed out, when we forget that they too are only symbols and begin to worship them instead, religion becomes a problem, and a cause of oppression, division, and battle.
max314 said:
Quote: | | After all, as DaVinci has helped me show, no one of the subtextual references is ever 'exact' (e.g. the Christ allegory is not applicable to all aspects of the trilogy). They're only subtextual off-shoots that help expand the depth of the text. |
Exactly ... not concentric rings, but a spiral.
intell said (in 7/7):
Quote: | | What we "see" in the text will very much depend on what "lenses" we are looking through and where we are focusing. |
to which I'd like to quote from the Wachowski brothers' 1999 interview:
Quote: | "The Matrix is about the birth and evolution of consciousness. It starts off crazy, then things start to make sense."
"We're interested in mythology, theology and, to a certain extent, higher-level mathematics," says Larry. All are ways human beings try to answer bigger questions, as well as The Big Question. If you're going to do epic stories, you should concern yourself with those issues. People might not understand all the allusions in the movie, but they understand the important ideas. We wanted to make people think, engage their minds a bit." |
And to emphasize the point, a quote from Larry's chat with Ken Wilber which Gina Rink kindly posted in toto recently:
Quote: | | Larry: I mean, the Matrix is an exploration of consciousness... |
|
