»"'Matrix' Explained" Explained«

Since naming a site "Matrix" Explained -- no conditionals attached, just "Matrix" Explained -- necessarily entails that you can, indeed, explain "The Matrix," I find it extremely interesting to note the resultant "explanations" offered -- and how they are not, indeed, explanations. Should the webmaster have titled his noble venture as "Matrix" Supposition or My "Matrix" Hypotheses, it would be a different story; then, one's opinions can remain safely in the subjective realm of opinions. But by grandiosely breaching the objective threshold, he -- and please forgive me if the webmaster is a she instead of a he; it's a grammatical convention, really -- then places himself in the unenvious position of having to not only truly and really explain the "Matrix" movies, but also to explain himself, as well. If you are the sole individual, after all, who can explain a given topic, your credentials will naturely be inquired into by the rest of the provincial masses.

Since "The Matrix" has a hugely fundamental philosophical strain, in order to explain the Wachowskis' opus, one must have quite a thorough background in philosophy, fluent in everything from heuristics to metaphysics to phenomenology to the philosophy of religion. If a masters (or several) in philosophy is not available for the webmaster to present, then some form of qualification must be presented -- pictures of his extensive library of texts, perhaps. And since the site is "Matrix" Explained -- and not just, say, The Philosophy of "The Matrix" Explained -- one must also possess a consummate understanding of and insight to mythology, history, religion, spirituality, psychology, sociology, the various branches of science, and all the other myriad topics and domains the "Matrix" saga ventures into or touches upon. That's quite a resume for any one person to have, but is, naturally, what will accompany an individual who can fully, completely, and indelibly explain the entirity of a given piece of art, especially one as dense as the Wachowskis'. (Which is not to mention, of course, a strong background in the creative process, in general, and the filmmaking process, in specific; who is more qualified, after all, to comment upon the writing of a particular movie than another [experienced] writer? Thus, our webmaster must be, quite naturally, both an impeccable scholar and an accomplished artist.)

Lastly, above and beyond all the required educational and experiential backgrounds, one must also possess perhaps the most crucial element of them all to definitively explain a given topic: insight into that particular topic. As such, demanding an arbitrary story element, such as a "twist," or defending an erroneous interpretation, such as the so-called "Matrix-within-a-Matrix" theory, would be out of the question. Indeed, since the very definition of "explain" is to define or expound, one would take what was given him and do just that -- define and explain the given material -- instead of forcibly interjecting the source material with outside (and incongruous) elements.

msunyata

I got bored after about here:

Quote:

his noble venture as "Matrix" Supposition

anyone else?

Quote:

Since "The Matrix" has a hugely fundamental philosophical strain, in order to explain the Wachowskis' opus, one must have quite a thorough background in philosophy, fluent in everything from heuristics to metaphysics to phenomenology to the philosophy of religion.

Ah, but what about the one thing that the W Brothers seemed to have lacked in M2 and M3: the ability to write a cohesive screenplay?

Kid:

"I got bored [sic] Anyone else?"

But not too bored, it would seem, to take the time to respond.

Gnostic:

"Ah, but what about the one thing that the W brothers seemed to have lacked in 'M2' and 'M3': the ability to write a cohesive screenplay?"

Show me how many screenplays you've written -- coherent or not -- and then we'll talk.



msunyata

Kid wrote:

I got bored after about here: Quote: his noble venture as "Matrix" Supposition anyone else?

Sorry, where was that 'noble venture' thing?
I cannot find it again.

msunyata wrote:

Since naming a site "Matrix" Explained -- no conditionals attached...

What do you mean by "conditionals" in this context?

I didn't read it all.

But I have one question. How many times did you look in the thesaurus when writing your message?

Matrix-explained.com did explain many things to me, and raised questions I never thought of.

M2 and M3 friggin' sucked... I believe they did steal the story from Sophia.... That's only my opinion, don't flame me...

im sorry...but to criticise knn by citing the name of the website is just being pedantic to the highest degree possible

there are a million matrix websites on the net...none of which claim to be more than fansites for discussion

the "explained" side of things is open ended....for each to put his own explanation of the matrix seeing as it is still lacking from the w brothers

mines is still the only right explanation of course

NoName:

"What do you mean by 'conditionals' in this context?"

The "Matrix" is not conditionally explained -- that is to say, not explained to any one person or group in specific or in any one particular discipline (a literary explanation, a filmic explanation) -- but universally explained. That's *a lot* of ground to cover.

*A lot*.

ior:

"But I have one question. How many times did you look in the thesaurus when writing your message?"

None. Why?

"Matrix-explained.com did explain many things to me, and raised questions I never thought of."

I will politely ignore the first point and say only to the second: a phone book, if read in the right state of mind, can make one think of things never before thought of.

the anomaly:

"I'm sorry... but to criticize knn by citing the name of the website is just being pedantic to the highest degree possible."

It's not so much the arrogance or pretentiousness of the title as it is the mentality that the title perpetrates -- the posturing of opinion as fact, of wantonness for learning. It's a mentality that one finds all too commonly on the internet.

But you're right. The psychology of communication is thoroughly pedantic.

"There are a million 'Matrix' websites on the net... none of which claim to be more than fansites for discussion."

Except, of course, when they claim to *explain* the films. I don't see MatrixFans.net or TheLastFreeCity.com making such assertions...

"The 'explained' side of things is open ended... for each to put his own explanation of the 'Matrix,' seeing as it is still lacking from the W brothers."

Let me get this right: if the Wachowskis were to sit down and publish a multi-volume work *explaining* "The Matrix," then this website would either have to shut down its doors or rename itself?

That's an interesting statement on several different levels.

msunyata

msunyata:

Impressive speech.

In my opinion, explaining has limits.

For instance there are things which cannot be understood, even if explained, because the required experience is lacking.