AletheiaRivers

Congrats Des!

Oh the things you find with google ... Flash animation, about 5 minutes long. The Meatrix - Click Here

LOL! I liked the first one so much BECAUSE it WASN'T a neat little black and white package. I liked that it was so ambiguous. Different people took completely different ideas away from the movie. The ending offered hope and freedom from lies and repression, but it left the viewer to "fill in the blank" of what repression was effecting their own lives, that perhaps they could be freed from, that perhaps would move them to take the red pill. The second and third ones attempted to wrap up all those ambiguous loose ends by taking the viewer down a very specific path, rather than letting the viewer intuit what he/she wanted. The neat little path that the movie started following was NOT what I got from the first movie and it bugged me. I took the red pill and left being a JW. I think I saw the movie every day for a week. I took the risk to find out "the real" which of course has lead me here. I just didn't like how the 2nd and 3rd movies took that ambiguousness away. "The Real" became something much more specific, something that the writers wanted "the real" to be. I suppose I should have known as soon as I heard that they were making a sequel that the Neo/Christ metaphor would be taken to its logical "Christian" conclusion and that Neo would have to die. Argh! I just don't like it. It's not what the first movie was about. It's funny, right after the first movie was made, there was an interview done with the writers (not even going to attempt to spell the names here). They basically said that they just wrote a sci fi film and named key characters various "profound sounding" names just for kicks. They never expected the movie to make people question their beliefs or become arm chair philosophers. I imagine they would say otherwise now. All that said, it's been a while since I saw the second and third movies. I'd be up for watching them again to watch for allusions to polarity and reality. I do find it intersting, in light of our current conversation, that Mr. Smith is Neo's brother and that they are ONE (dare I say yin/yang?) I owned all three for a while. Last year when I needed money I sold part two and three. I probably won't buy them again, but would rent the trilogy just to hear Ken Wilber.

"The Matrix" has come up in the thread on Fundemental Theology. I decided to post a reply on this thread, since it seems more on topic than posting it over there. An online review summed up my thoughts pretty well about the part 2 and 3. Here are some snipets:

Awesome post. Welcome to the board. We as a race have bought into the idea of DUALITY, not polarity. Duality is "either/or", polarity is "both/and". Polarity is like a coin - it has two sides, but it is still ONE coin. Polarity is like a magnet with a north and south pole - there are two poles, but just one magnet. IMO, we NEED to embrace that reality is polar, that we are polar. Like you have said, reality is "grey". Reality IS.

Only the first one unfortunately. I hate to be a cliche, but it changed my life big time! The second and third ones ... . What were they thinking?

I smiled because you said Card sounded like a Southern Baptist. Mormons and Southern Baptists have a LONG history of really really not liking each other. The SBC likes to come and picket the LDS temple whenever they are in town (Utah). Just thought it was funny (ironic).

LOL Orson Scott Card is Mormon.

Here's another article on the new movie. I'm not particularly fond of Card, but I thought his review of the movie and the religion apparently springing from it are relevant to this thread: No Faith in This Force - Orson Scott Card PS - This was longer than I thought it was, so I snipped quite a bit. Sorry.

Here is a scripture rendition that I thought you might like Soma. I can't post the whole explanation as it is too long, I'll post the link. The spiritual realm is not something Whose coming you can see. You cannot say `Here it is!' or `There it is!' For the spiritual realm is within you. There will come a time When you want `see' the spiritual realm But you will not sight it. They will tell you `Look here!' or `Look there!' Do not go off following them. The Image-of-God will come to you at that time As lightning strikes across the heavens first here then there. ... That's how it will be when the Image-of-God is revealed. On that night ... Of two people in the field one will receive it the other will be left out. Wherever the living body is Eagles will be gathered. Lk 17:37 Aletheia Pleromatics Project - Jesus, Cross, Cosmos

Hmmm, 10 gallon tank and your sister. Hmmm. Water is emotions ... hmmm ... perhaps your sister makes you feel like you wish you had less emotions? OK, I give up. I don't do dream interpretation well. I believe much of it is subjective anyway. Moving in with your sister? AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

My thin place is the mountains near where I live. I can sit in silence against a really old tree and just FEEL God. Mysticism is my passion. There is a "Mystical Christianity" thread in the Progressive forum. Some of the posts might offer some insights, but like Cynthia said, a mystical experience is rather hard to explain (ineffable). The Mystic Heart by Teasdale is an awesome book that explains different mystical traditions and experiences. Also, in the "Mystical Christianity" thread I mentioned, earlier today I posted a link for a websight that has TONS of information.

Here's a cool websight. I'm posting it here rather than in the links portion because it specifically has to do with mystical Christianity. Inner Explorations . com

I didn't have a clue what "privatio boni" was when Fred mentioned it yesterday, so I looked it up. Here's a definition: "Privatio Boni can be loosely translated as "lack of good." It is a theological doctrine that good and evil are, in some circumstances at least, asymmetrical. Strictly speaking, it holds that evil is insubstantial, so that thinking of it as an entity is misleading: it would be more constructive to speak only of relative amounts of good. Our perceptions are based on contrast, so that light and dark, good and evil, are imperceptible without each other; in this context, these sets of opposites show a certain symmetry. But a basic study of optics teaches us that light has a physical presence of its own, whereas darkness does not: no anti-lamp or flashdark can be constructed which casts a beam of darkness onto a surface that is otherwise well-lit. Instead, darkness only appears when sources of light are extinguished or obscured, and only persists when an object absorbs a disproportionate amount of the light that strikes it. The relationship between light and darkness is often used to frame a metaphorical understanding of good and evil. This metaphor can be used to answer the problem of evil: If evil, like darkness, does not truly exist, but is only a name we give to our perception of privatio boni, then our widespread observation of evil does not preclude the possibility of a benevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent god. If the metaphor can be extended, and good and evil share the same asymmetry as light and darkness, then evil can have no source, cannot be projected, and, of itself, can offer no resistance to any source of good, no matter how weak or distant. In this case, goodness cannot be actively opposed, and power becomes a consequence of benevolence. However, in this case evil is the default state of the universe, and good exists only through constant effort; any lapse or redirection of good will apparently create evil out of nothing."

I wanted to add that I really didn't mean to define evil as being the absence of good, because that only shows one side of the picture that I have in my mind. I think what I'm trying to flesh out is that God originates a universe that allows us to make choices and that these choices can help us to become more "solid" or more "translucent" (which Lily's words made me think of). In my scenario, good and evil are naturally necessary because they have to exist as options, but that doesn't mean that choosing good isn't what God wants us to do. And saying that God has "free will options" doesn't mean that God isn't GOOD and would ever choose to do bad. Saying that someone COULD do something doesn't mean that being ever would, but the option has (imo) to exist. When I say "neutral" I don't mean "morally neutral", but "options".

Made me think of Merton's comment about our needing to do what we can to become transluscent to God. I've studied (a little mind you) the Kabbalah and the Tree of Life. Pretty interesting stuff. It made me go "Ooooh, it's the Jewish yin/yang." LOL. Yes. In my pondering of God and "all that is" (being), I realized that "evil" is just as much a part of Being as good. Without both we would not KNOW. Thanks for putting my words into better words. I agree. I'd still like to find a different word for "neutral". I tried "Isness" for a while, it didn't work either.

Did you mean me? I wrote it. OK, so I'm talking about the "modern version" of free will. OK, good. But I'M talking about choice. That's my point. I don't (for the sake of argument) care about the pre-modern definition of free will. I'm talking about choice: For any action there can be an opposite action. Like you said (and I agree) to avoid further confusion, we need to stick to one or the other, material or structure, and not bounce back and forth because they are a bit different and things are getting (getting? ) confusing. I've mostly been talking about abstracts, about structure. Fred wrote: This is where the mathematical analogy actually really pays off: Evil isn't a ZERO, it's a Negative Good. While there aren't negative quantities of things running around in the world; mathematically, negative numbers play an crucial structural role in the physical universe. If I had to put privation theory in a nutshell, that's how I'd do it. I didnt say evil is a zero. I'm still coming from the yin/yang, thesis/antithesis/synthesis, Christ/Satan polarity idea, the mirror image idea. In this idea, zero isn't the "evil" half of the synthesis, it IS the synthesis. I think the "neutrality" (care to think up a better word, I'm not to fond of it but I'm stumped for another) of God HAS to encompass all metaphysical, material, theological and philosophical (in a nutshell - ONTOLOGICAL) opposites and choices. Even if God was completely good, unable to make any other choice besides good (which seems like a rock to big for god to lift scenario) then WHY would God create a universe in which we can choose to do bad things? If God cannot choose, why give us the ability to choose? Saying God is all good doesn't remove the "blame" as far as there being evil in the world because the way that God set up the universe allows for Hitlers and so, ultimately, God originates evil in that the universe is set up ontologically, to allow it. It's a "turtles all the way down" problem. It all has to end somewhere. If God is the ultimate synthesis, shouldn't it end there? How do you KNOW? Kidding. Actually, I was trying to use a material example (kinda like apples) to explain an ontological "structural" idea. I was talking more about the nature of good and evil than I was about heat and cold.

I wanted to revisit this, even though I've already commented on it somewhat, because my husband and I were discussing it this morning. Evil as "privatio boni" - a lack of something, a mirror image of or "anti" something (all degrees of the same thing) - a good example is heat and cold. Cold doesn't exist scientifically. Cold is the absence of heat. But think about it - there comes a point where heat is SO ABSENT that cold takes on a life of it's own and is so complete that it would take massive amounts of heat to drive it away. So saying "evil is a lack of good", although sounding trite and not quite right at first, makes sense to me. A "little lack-of-good" doesn't seem evil, but if enough good is taken away, then it takes on a life of its own. Saying that Hitler was a "lack of good" doesn't seem to sum him up very well, but it makes sense if you see that "lack of good" comes in degrees. A little lack-of-heat doesn't = cold, but it will if the lack-of-heat progresses far enough. I think it is when something progresses far enough along the "lack of" line that it eventually becomes "anti". So I think I understand what Lily is saying about "how can what is, not exist"? Evil exists in that it is polar to good. Good exists in that it is polar to evil. Good and evil exist as choices. Anyway, just some thoughts ... Open to revision at any time without notice. PS - In case someone thinks "Yeah but heat exists objectively", my question is "But does it?" If cold is a lack of heat, can heat be a lack of cold? If there were absolutely no cold anywhere, would it then be hot everywhere? I'd say yes. This comes back to my question - Does good exist objectively where evil does not? How would we KNOW what cold is without something to compare it to and how would we know what heat is, without something to compare it to?

God generates the structurally necessary Being/non-being polarity, so in that sense, good and evil "come from" God. Yes, that is what I mean. God doesn't actually will evil, I agree. God does provide the free will ability to choose any given action or the lack of action or the active opposition to an action, etc ... ad infinitum. I don't see how that makes God a lousy creator. I do see how it makes free will more important and loving than making us robots. Guess not. LOL! Of course free will, including free will for God, is the current basis of my ontology, so it's part of my whole foundation. -2 apples added to 2 apples = no apples (0, NEUTRALITY). And here is where I'd like to throw a (another?) wrench into the discussion. Does good EXIST any more than evil does? What if the universe and God are "neutral"? Isn't that what you get with thesis/antithesis, Christ/Lucifer, matter/antimatter? A THIRD option?

From the article Here are a couple of sentences that struck me:

Interesting Article , Click Here Good grief! I just googled "privatio boni" to get an idea of the meaning, and this article popped up.

I'm not familiar with the term "Quaternity", so bear with me please. I have heard that Jung believed that good and evil originate in God. I'm not sure EXACTLY what HE MEANT by that, but I know what I MEAN when I say I currently believe the same thing. I don't know what "privation boni" is either, but the metaphor you used of evil as being a "mirror image of being" set off a light in my brain. When I say that good and evil originate in God, it is this "mirror image" idea that I'm thinking of. When I've used the term "God is neutral", it is this mirror image idea that I'm thinking of. I'm coming from the perspective that EVERYTHING "originates" in God. There would be NOTHING without God, so any "THING" that is, comes from God. It's not that God actively created evil. It's that any single thing MUST have a "mirror image". Any single thing must have a contrast. Everything comes from God and God contains all possitives and negatives, all images and mirror images. So when Jung said good and evil come from God, did he have this idea in mind, or did he believe God actively created evil? I know Jung was deeply influenced by Gnosticism, so I imagine, if he believed in the Demiurge, that he might have actually believed the Demiurge was purposefully creating evil. This is NOT even close to what I mean when I say "good and evil arise from God". I think you might have just said in one sentence, what it took me a few paragraphs to state? God (the Godhead) created a DYNAMIC universe, a free will universe, where any given action or thing MUST have an opposite. And I can affirm this statement, that satan is the first antithesis, even though I don't believe in a fallen angel named Satan. The satan, in Jewish theology, is simply the "accuser" or advocate or voice of OPPOSITION, which still fits in with the T/A/S triad. Jesus would be the "thesis". In my mind now, I'm picturing the yin/yang symbolism as Jesus/Satan or Christ/Lucifer (possitive/negative, image/mirror image, thesis/antithesis) "surrounded" by the circle of God. I know that takes the Holy Spirit somewhat out of the picture, which isn't a stretch for me as an ex-JW, because JW's believe that the Holy Spirit is God's "active force" and not a seperate entity. So by saying "God surrounds" the thesis/antithesis, the Holy Spirit would be part of that. Anyway ...

Wow! Ummm, so many thoughts, so little time. Thank you. This is not what I was thinking of when I mentioned T/A/S. This IS what I was thinking of when I mentioned T/A/S. When I read a little (very little) Hegel and learned that his T/A/S was primarily turned towards society and politics, I became disinterested in him. Also, the never ending progression didn't make sense to me either. Some progression yes. Microcosm to macrocosm. But in my mind, God is the final "synthesis". I think I get what you mean. Care to put it in laymens terms? Doh! Nevermind. This I get. (I hope.) And as I understand it, the Socratic method is intrinsically dialectic, which also predates Hegel. I do! Placeholders ... exactly. I like that. God is the ultimate Synthesis, the One which contains the dance of all that is.

I'm hoping you might elaborate. Perhaps on your Christology thread? Sounds intriguing.

Exactly! Yes yes yes. Like I said in the sentence right before that one - Jesus and the Holy Spirit being the "polarity" with God as the unity that contains all three. (I know it's not a complete analogy, but I'm trying here! ) I also said something similar on the Heart of Christianity thread about yin/yang not being TWO, but ONE. A few months back, when I was philosophizing so much, as I daydreamed, contemplated and pondered "the nature of God and reality" I came to the view of God, metaphysical reality and material reality as "duality in Unity". Microcosm to macrocosm. Then one day it hit me - yin/yang: It's one, no it's two, no wait, it's three! All are true! It's three in one! I GET IT now. I'd always pictured the Trinity as a "triptych", which of course never made any sense to me. I always thought "How can they be three and still be one ... yada yada yada." Now I get it! Whoo hoo! And now, thanks to Lily I can look at a cross and see the same thing (although I'd probably not appreciate it so deeply without the insight I gained from the yin/yang symbol).