»Matrix ReSolutions«

I noticed this on the thread

RodBell wrote:

A few posts ago it was discussed on what was the colour of the Oracles code as it appears to be green in the 'Smith takes OVer in the Kitchen' Scene

Yeah I thought about that too. If they are both programs from the machine world, Seraph and the Oracle that is, why is Seraph's code gold and not the Oracle's?

Found the link to the Green/Gold code topic

Thanks Rodbell for bringing this to my attention. I had never taken notice of the Oracle's green code in the context of my assumption from M2 that it was gold. Amazing the things we miss!

Anyway, I updated the Conversations: Neo & Oracle (M2) page on my site to link to a new page that I created on my site to explain this green/gold code thing (FAQ: Green & Gold Code):

matrixresolutions.com...

My explanation is different from any of the explanations in the thread you quoted.

- Surprised

Very nice website Surprised, with some great explanations and 'theories'
It sure kept me reading for a while.

btw I wonder if Neo becomes the next "Seraph" for Sati.
It would be great to see Neo as an ultimate blend between man an machine rebuilding the earth into a free place where man and machine can finally live with each other

Surprised wrote:

My explanation is different from any of the explanations in the thread you quoted.

The short truth is that if you hadn't have reconciled that all programs glow gold then you would have to explain why Neo doesn't burn fire in the real world at the end of Revolutions when he's walking to Deus if he's a program.

By the way, I take exception with your introduction in your "Higher Meanings" page and there's a good reason why - you speak as if the movies answered all the questions of the plot out right and it didn't. Why is Seraph's code gold? Good question, now show me where they answer that in the story without drawing any conclusions or using any "higher meanings" to induce meaning into that picture. Quote me the part of the script where the answer is.

Your quote from Ken Wilbur is "selective" and falsely interpreted. Larry says that people will be interested in the truth of the movies on different levels, not that one does not relate to the other. In fact, the space inbetween the question and the answer lies the truth and some are "more integral" and some are "less integral" but all are valid according to Larry.

gettoonakedtest.integralinstitute.org...

Integral Naked wrote:

In the following dialogue, for the first time ever, we are lucky enough to hear Larry publicly comment on this situation. As he explains, the movies were in many ways designed not to give answers, but to introduce questions. What does it mean to be human? What is reality? Who is in control? Does God exist? and so on. If he was to explain what he thought the movies meant, he would be providing people with another concept of reality to either accept or reject—either way, the open space created by the question would vanish.

Integral Naked wrote:

This dialogue is meant to highlight what a more integral view of interpretation involves. In chapters 4 and 5 of The Eye of Spirit, Ken suggests that any work of art can be interpreted from at least four or five major perspectives, none of which is privileged, all of which are important. These include: the artist's original intent (what did the artist himself or herself mean by this artwork?); unconscious factors in the artist; the cultural background of the artist; and the viewer response (what does the artwork mean to different viewers of the artwork?).

Larry Wachowski in that same interview wrote:

Yeah, I mean you make a work of art and you WANT it to be provocative. You want people to dialogue about it. You don't want to rely on someone to tell them what it is. It's like the whole nature of the movie is exactly that.

Larry Wachowski in that same interview wrote:

It seems hypocritical for us to go out and tell people what it means or what you're supposed to think about it. And even if I or Andy were to do it and to try to contextualize it as "this is what it means to us" by the very nature of us being the creators of it, becomes law, it becomes THE interpretation and anyones else's interpretation is just some crazy person who really doesn't get it. I don't want to devalue anyone's opinion of it. That's one of the reasons I think art is a worthwhile experience...

Here it is in black and white, unless of course you believe the synopsis interpreted Larry & Ken incorrectly (which would be a logic trap for you ) or that even Larry doesn't know his own meta-intent. And any piece of art (including a picture of the grand canyon) is usually inspired and meant to inspire. Garbage collector... initials... ? What's that about?

When I went to look at Gauguin's Novel Reader in Chicago, if I had just looked at it and said, "hey great, it's a woman reading a book, I get it," I would be missing the point entirely.

If I then ask, "I wonder why it uses such surreal colors?" I would then be amiss to simply answer with, "because it's green, yellow and blue, besides, the question is irrelevant anyway." Which is basically what you're proposing.

The true answer is a truth on many levels including asking why Paul would have chose those colors, how do they make you feel, what are the social interpretations of those colors in his time and in our time, etc. Paul didn't leave anything as literal as the matrix behind to answer questions but the Matrix isn't as clear cut as the pictures that make it up either.

PS - I think 2001 can take on Catcher in the Rye in terms of literary significance easily. I don't know what makes you think it would be so easy to determine that it couldn't.

Aether wrote:

Surprised wrote: My explanation is different from any of the explanations in the thread you quoted. The short truth is that if you hadn't have reconciled that all programs glow gold then you would have to explain why Neo doesn't burn fire in the real world at the end of Revolutions when he's walking to Deus if he's a program.

Actually, I wouldn't have to explain that - Neo is still "irrevocably human" up to the very end of M3 - he is not a program even though he has been given many of the abilities one would need to behave like one, including a connection to the Source.

Aether wrote:

you speak as if the movies answered all the questions of the plot out right and it didn't.

Hmm, I didn't mean to come across this way. If you look at the main page (homepage), I state very clearly: "The purpose of this website is to document and answer questions about the Matrix movies, using anything from a definitive answer to a theory to a mere possibility." But I did notice something I wrote in my Higher Meanings page that could unintentionally come across that way, so I changed the wording a bit (changed "completely understand" to something like "understand the surface of the story"). Thanks for pointing this out - hopefully it's fixed now.

Now, for your quotations from Integral Naked and Larry Wachowski:

Aether wrote:

Integral Naked wrote: In the following dialogue, for the first time ever, we are lucky enough to hear Larry publicly comment on this situation. As he explains, the movies were in many ways designed not to give answers, but to introduce questions. What does it mean to be human? What is reality? Who is in control? Does God exist? and so on. If he was to explain what he thought the movies meant, he would be providing people with another concept of reality to either accept or reject—either way, the open space created by the question would vanish.

Yes, not everything in the movies is answered (I hope I already cleared this up sufficiently earlier in this post). As for the questions here (what does it mean to be human, what is reality, etc.), those are questions that can be handled totally separate from questions that deal purely with plot. We don't use symbolism as a way to answer questions relating to how Cypher was able to jack himself in and out of the Matrix (or at least, we don't need to).

Aether wrote:

Integral Naked wrote: This dialogue is meant to highlight what a more integral view of interpretation involves. In chapters 4 and 5 of The Eye of Spirit, Ken suggests that any work of art can be interpreted from at least four or five major perspectives, none of which is privileged, all of which are important. These include: the artist's original intent (what did the artist himself or herself mean by this artwork?); unconscious factors in the artist; the cultural background of the artist; and the viewer response (what does the artwork mean to different viewers of the artwork?).

This quote is not talking about plot devices. The quote actually completely supports my point on my Higher Meanings page. The interpretive methods listed in your quote are not things one needs to use to figure out plot, which is all my website seeks to do (and this is the only simple point my Higher Meanings page seeks to make). Nowhere in this quote is it even remotely implied that we use cultural factors, artistic intent, etc. to answer questions of pure plot function, such as, "What actually happens in the Matrix when Neo's code is disseminated?" It seems like you think my website is asking questions of artistic nature when it isn't AT ALL. It doesn't take an artist to figure out plot function of the Matrix - only a hardcore fan, which is all I am. (I leave my artistic side to creating and performing music.)

Aether wrote:

Larry Wachowski in that same interview wrote: Yeah, I mean you make a work of art and you WANT it to be provocative. You want people to dialogue about it. You don't want to rely on someone to tell them what it is. It's like the whole nature of the movie is exactly that.

Again, this is referring to deep meanings embedded in the movies, not to plot function, and this (and all the other quotes you gave me) are totally consistent with my website. None of these quotes say that we must tangle up simple plot function with symbolic/philosophical meanings.

Aether wrote:

Larry Wachowski in that same interview wrote: It seems hypocritical for us to go out and tell people what it means or what you're supposed to think about it. And even if I or Andy were to do it and to try to contextualize it as "this is what it means to us" by the very nature of us being the creators of it, becomes law, it becomes THE interpretation and anyones else's interpretation is just some crazy person who really doesn't get it. I don't want to devalue anyone's opinion of it. That's one of the reasons I think art is a worthwhile experience...

[/quote]

Once again, interpretation, not plot.

Aether wrote:

And any piece of art (including a picture of the grand canyon) is usually inspired and meant to inspire.

Why does this conflict with my Grand Canyon/collage example? The Grand Canyon artist is obviously seeking to inspire visually, while the collage artist is seeking to do the same but is not nearly as successful.

Aether wrote:

Garbage collector... initials... ? What's that about?

Ok, sorry, I admit that was just dumb. I took that out. I wasn't trying to be an artist myself though, Aether - I was just trying to get a simple point across.

Aether wrote:

When I went to look at Gauguin's Novel Reader in Chicago, if I had just looked at it and said, "hey great, it's a woman reading a book, I get it," I would be missing the point entirely.

But it seems this is missing the Wachowskis' point entirely. The Wachowskis won't go on record specifically because they wish for every personal reaction to be treated as legitimate. That includes the reaction of a lamebrain looking at the 3 movies and saying, "Wow, what great movies - I totally understand the plot!" (without understanding the Christ story, Buddhism parallels, philosophical questions, etc.) Such sci-fi lamebrains have just as much right to miss the deeper philosophical questions in the movies as you have to miss the point of the painting mentioned above, which I know absolutely nothing about.

Should I scowl at you if you hypothetically had no interest in analyzing the first movement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony, if you preferred instead just listening to for the experiencing of the "audio image" it personally conveys to you? That is the beauty of all great composers - they write music that people love even when they don't study the music. My approach in separating simple Matrix plot function from Matrix higher meanings - putting higher meanings where they belong - is not only a legitimate thing to do, I think it's actually the correct thing to do. It works in all art forms: I would never expect someone to try to fabricate something like, "Beethoven wrote this four note motif because his dog's name had four syllables, and it just fits his dog's name really well." This is an example of being way too analysis-minded to be of any practical value when it comes to understanding the art. If you agree that this example is ridiculous, then you should really consider agreeing with my introduction to the Higher Meanings page, because this is all I'm really saying!

I've heard people say that Neo came alive at the end of M1 by nothing other than sheer religious miracle prompted by a magical "turn my frog into a prince" kiss from Trinity, when in fact if you read my MxO pages you'll realize this explanation is totally unnecessary as PLOT explanation (but perfectly fine as a separate, underlying layer). ALL redpills in MxO experience what Neo experienced (death and then back to life) at the end of M1 because all redpills are given the same auto-jack-out protection that Neo must have had in M1. I'm not saying my explanation is absolutely the only right explanation - I'm only saying it's the most reasonable and logical explanation that fits in the realm of science fiction with what information we currently have about the movies, comics, games, etc. Saying Neo came back to life BECAUSE Trinity kissed him is, as a plot device, absurd and downright insulting to the Wachowski bros. (although I doubt they'd actually feel insulted when the only people doing this are just missing the point of art entirely - they'd probably take pity on these people).

If plot and higher meanings were allowed to be intertwined, I think the quote from the Ken/Larry conversation would have said instead that critics and philosophers BOTH look at interiors and exteriors. But Larry didn't say that - he said that critics will hopefully look at exteriors and philosophers will hopefully look at interiors. Key word: hopefully! They don't want the two brilliant layers confused with each other. I put on a different hat when I look at each layer, and I'm careful to distinguish the two types of analyses on my website. This is the kind of analysis the Wachowskis hoped for - their quotes are very easy to understand and really do speak for themselves regardless of context.

Aether wrote:

If I then ask, "I wonder why it uses such surreal colors?" I would then be amiss to simply answer with, "because it's green, yellow and blue, besides, the question is irrelevant anyway." Which is basically what you're proposing.

No, not at all - this is a faulty analogy. Your question about colors asks about the technique used to produce the painting, which is actually a fairly deep question about the painting - not a surface question at all. The questions my website asks have nothing to do with the Wachowskis' techniques in coming up with their script. A better analogy would be, "What is this thing up here in the upper left corner of the painting - is it an abstract blob or does it represent a cat?" This simply seeks to understand what the heck the painting is trying to display ON THE SURFACE, exactly what my website is primarily concerned with (but not solely concerned with).

Aether wrote:

PS - I think 2001 can take on Catcher in the Rye in terms of literary significance easily. I don't know what makes you think it would be so easy to determine that it couldn't.

Well, maybe I'm just biased since I could hardly tolerate watching 2001: Space Odyssey. The only movies I hated more were Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, both of which happened to be the same director (my taste in movies is very consistent because I concluded the latter two were my absolute most hated movies of all time before knowing they were the same director).

I don't think any of my quotes are out of context (and a few of my buddies agree the quotes are fine) - there are so many quotes from different sources that all support each other that they really speak for themselves. The only point they seek to make is that the movies really can be analyzed on several different levels independent of each other - critics can analyze one level while philosophers can analyze another. This was spoken so plainly that there is no way this CAN be taken out of context.

- Surprised

Surprised wrote:

Doh. This posting has been moved to a links forum. I suppose my oroginal post is indeed a link, but it is disappointing to me that the moderators don't feel that this post could be an exception since my site is 100% devoted to Matrix theory.

I moved it.

* Moves topic back *

Although I can't understand why you think that the "Theories" forum is "superior" to the "Links" one.

th3 p4th wrote:

Surprised wrote: Doh. This posting has been moved to a links forum... I moved it. * Moves topic back * Although I can't understand why you think that the "Theories" forum is "superior" to the "Links" one.

Oh, I just figured that the people most likely to care about this posting are those interested in Matrix theory, but I do understand why my message would have been moved to the links section. Thanks for moving it back.

- Surprised

I think you have to rewrite this part a little bit

pendaco wrote:

I think you have to rewrite this part a little bit matrixresolutions.com... Quote: When Neo saw the gold code of Seraph and the Oracle, he guessed correctly that the code identified them as machines (not that the code identified the location from which the machines were broadcasting into the Matrix).

Thanks very much for pointing this out - I just updated it.

pendaco wrote:

Btw Im not sure if every program inside the Matrix emits the same glow/light as Seraph. There is also a major difference with the glow inside and outside the Matrix (if Seraphs glowing light is similar to that of all other machines plugged into the Matrix); inside; light emits from inside out outside (real world, neo view); light 'flows' and waves within machines

I'm not sure which page this point addresses (and not sure what contradiction or clarification your point is making). Can you tell me which of my pages I should look at in the context of what you say above?

By the way, the page you were talking about was actually Smith: Smith's Defeat (your link pointed to Debunked: Cancelling Opposites).

Thanks again for your feedback!

- Surprised

np

Surprised wrote:

I'm not sure which page this point addresses (and not sure what contradiction or clarification your point is making). Can you tell me which of my pages I should look at in the context of what you say above?

"No. No point. There's no point." (man... you can use a matrix quote for everything )

It was just a random thought, because we only see Seraphs code, it doesn't have to mean that the code/light from other machines (connected at the matrix) emits the same way as Seraphs.
But perhaps I'm going a bit too far but it wouldnt change anything to your website/pages I think.