»Ken Wilber talks about V for Vendetta«

Here at his blog: kenwilber.com...

He he.. and there is confirmation that Larry is still with Karin Winslow / Ilsa Strix

Who is she?

en.wikipedia.org...

Thats really cool. I still haven't seen V for Vendetta. Have you others who have seen it noticed any Integral or Matrix-like themes in V? Are they obvious or are the interpretations more layered like they were in the Trilogy?

Thanks, a new forum member.

The Interpreter wrote:

Thats really cool. I still haven't seen V for Vendetta. Have you others who have seen it noticed any Integral or Matrix-like themes in V? Are they obvious or are the interpretations more layered like they were in the Trilogy? Thanks, a new forum member.

Wilber... When the record is written will it say, Ken Wilber was ahead of his time and just misunderstood or will it say, Ken Wilber: Integral promo whore.

The meanings slap you in the face.

I was kinda thinking that.

The back cover says, "'Terrific. Vendetta is up there with the Wachowski Brothers' first Matrix film.' - Richard Corliss, TIME"

Huh? So I guess he didn't get the point of the second and third. As if they aren't part of a whole.

Gina Rink wrote:

When the record is written will it say, Ken Wilber was ahead of his time and just misunderstood or will it say, [i]Ken Wilber: Integral promo whore.

Since Larry openly idolizes Wilber and looks up to him, it's probably a safe bet to think that Wilber's ideas on Larry's works are fairly sound (like listening to Campbell talk about Star Wars and knowing that Lucas was massively influenced by and openly enlisted the advice of Campbell in the construction of those films).

I guess somebody missed the point in the Ken-Larry interview that dealt with not wanting the film makers' statements to become law. Plus, where is it stated that Wilber was a consultant in the making of the films?

CaptPostMod wrote:

Since Larry openly idolizes Wilber and looks up to him...

What gives you that idea?...

intell wrote:

I guess somebody missed the point in the Ken-Larry interview that dealt with not wanting the film makers' statements to become law.

Where did I say anything about the film makers' statements?

intell wrote:

Plus, where is it stated that Wilber was a consultant in the making of the films?

Can't find where I said that either? (Are you just making up things to argue with me about now?)

tozy wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: Since Larry openly idolizes Wilber and looks up to him... What gives you that idea?...

Throughout that interview Larry makes several references back to Ken's work, and is very open about being a fan. It seems like I read Larry at some point saying that when he read Wilber for the first time it was a great experience, but it's totally possible I dreamed that last bit.

Quote:

Where did I say anything about the film makers' statements?

Where did I say you did. I just said you missed the point they made...As you missed this one.

Quote:

Can't find where I said that either?

How about:

Quote:

...it's probably a safe bet to think that Wilber's ideas on Larry's works are fairly sound (like listening to Campbell talk about Star Wars and knowing that Lucas was massively influenced by and openly enlisted the advice of Campbell in the construction of those films).

Bad comparison. Fallacious logic.

Quote:

(Are you just making up things to argue with me about now?)

I made an observation and then I asked a question. Since when does that qualify as arguing? You must be in Dubya's cabinet.

intell wrote:

I made an observation and then I asked a question. Since when does that qualify as arguing? You must be in Dubya's cabinet.

You used condescending wording which suggests an argumentative stance--

intell wrote:

I guess somebody missed the point in the Ken-Larry interview that dealt with not wanting the film makers' statements to become law.

Not to mention you are now being very hypocritical--

intell wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: intell wrote: If god is in us all, then why should anyone interfere with either free will or its results, which are based on causality? Indeed, why would anyone want to interfere, regardless? Your question lacks a statement. If God were not in us all (of course, I don't think he is either, I think we all are God but that's a whole other discussion), then why should anyone interfere with either free will or its results, which are based on causality? The question as posed or however you want to alter it, still stands. Trolling again, Capt. It must be that time of the month again.

On that thread I made an observation and then I asked a question. Since when does that qualify as trolling?

capt... wrote:

You used condescending wording which suggests an argumentative stance--

Can it still be considered argumentative or condescending when your last 2 posts validate what I observed? You did miss the point and haven't found it yet.

Quote:

On that thread I made an observation and then I asked a question. Since when does that qualify as trolling?

It doesn't...in itself. And once again, I didn't say it did. All the posts you made that day when viewed as a complete picture qualifies as trolling.

Any more questions or personal issues you want to address? If not, maybe you can prove my observations wrong and shut me up that way.

intell wrote:

... and shut me up that way.

I can't shut you up, nor would I ever want to. You're the only one concerned with shutting people up.

intell wrote:

If not, maybe you can prove my observations wrong ...

What observations and whose are they? You said that you agreed with Gina that Ken Wilber may well be remembered as little more than an integral whore. I said that Wilber seems to be pretty in-tune with the concepts explored in the Matrix films. You then scolded me to say that I didn't understand Larry's statement about the film maker's opinions not being gospel. Did you read this thread-- matrix-explained.com...?

Would you like to discuss Ken Wilber, or just flame me more?

Quote:

What observations and whose are they?

These

Quote:

I said that Wilber seems to be pretty in-tune with the concepts explored in the Matrix films.

That would mean that you said that what Wilber has put forth SEEMS in line with the films, which statement would be based on having compared both (1)Wilber's statements and (2)The Matrix and reached that conclusion. Not a problem. But what you actually said was:

Quote:

Since Larry openly idolizes Wilber and looks up to him, it's probably a safe bet to think that Wilber's ideas on Larry's works are fairly sound (like listening to Campbell talk about Star Wars and knowing that Lucas was massively influenced by and openly enlisted the advice of Campbell in the construction of those films).

That means that you're saying that Ken's statements should be accepted, not on their own merit but because of outside factors, like his association with Larry.

Quote:

You then scolded me to say that I didn't understand Larry's statement about the film maker's opinions not being gospel.

Actually that would be enough to reprimand you. But Larry's statement is not whether the filmmakers' opinions ARE gospel (because they really are). Larry is concerned with people reading stuff like this and doing what you're doing. Not doing the research, examinations, and such and just accepting whatever someone close to the films say about it.

Quote:

Did you read this thread-- matrix-explained.com...?

What kind of question it that? Did I not post in the thread?

Quote:

You said that you agreed with Gina that Ken Wilber may well be remembered as little more than an integral whore.

"Promo."
That, of course, depends on how in tuned he is, not just with the movies, but with how things play out. How will you be remembered?

Quote:

Would you like to discuss Ken Wilber, or just flame me more?

It's not flaming. All my similar previous and current discussions are examples of dialectic. There's a difference, which is why I bother explaining and responding to you at all, instead of posting, "STFU u n00b. U R not uber1337." or something like that.

I can see your point. Badly constructed original post on my part then I prefer not be scolding or "reprimand" if possible, elenchus (dialectic) is a much more appreciated approach.

So we are to take it that you do not agree that Ken Wilber's statements on V or the Matrix Trilogy are helpful or overly accurate observations?

Ken's triple realm model (the idea that Zion is body, Matrix is mind, and the Machine world is spirit) seem to fit in very well with Larry's statement that Neo must solve the Cartesian dilema. It also helps explain what happens in the satori moment.

What flaws do you see in Wilber's observations?

That wasn't mean as a slight to Ken Wilber at all. His statements on the Matrix trilogy reveal alot. And the Cornel West/Ken Wilber 6 hours was very enlightening.

As for V, what he says is accurate but totally unnecessary to explain the movie. The comment alludes to his plugs that flavor his commentary.

Quote:

I can see your point. Badly constructed original post on my part then I prefer not be scolding or "reprimand" if possible, elenchus (dialectic) is a much more appreciated approach.

I'll take that into consideration.

intell wrote:

How will you be remembered?

Like this--

Here lies Captain Postmodernism...

He died at the hands of his arch rival, The Larch (head of Wal-mart's Department of Aggressive Marketing). To the last the Capt. championed bad ideas and pseudo-intellectual nonsense, much of which turned out to be half right (which is more than can be said for many things thought to orginally be completely right).

His Mind the Gap t-shirt and black trenchcoat continue to be passed down through his successors, all of whom are as defensively clue-less and foolishly questioning as the orginal Captain himself.

R.I.P. Captain

*spits my coffee i just sipped before reading this, laughing.*

The theme of the LWKW interview would be: intellectual vs. borderline psuedo-intellectual (they are like-minded so it seems they are buddies). The trick is telling which is which.
Very often, control of the interview switches sides allowing one to keep up with the other.

I don't know about looking up to one another. I would say, mutual exploitation.