Jump to content

The Matrix


Recommended Posts

(AletheiaRivers @ May 31 2005, 06:54 PM)

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.

 

Wow, that's great! A Matrix conversion experience! 

 

It was pretty profound. The people I was with couldn't understand why I just sat there crying after the move was over. LOL. :D

 

I spent (was it 4?) years imagining where they could possibly go from there... trying to extend the Christian symbolism of Neo in my mind... thinking that the virgin birth (no human parent on either side, in fact), rebirth, crucifixion, and resurrection had already occured...

 

I was in agony waiting for the next movie to come out. I never entertained any hopeful ideas about the next movie developing any Christian symbolism. On the contrary, I WORRIED that they would, because for me, when I saw the first movie, it was Christianity that I escaped from. Christianity was my Matrix. I took the red pill to find out the truth. LOL. Little did I know that I'd willingly come back a few years later.

 

I guess it's funny how differently we see it; I thought Reloaded introduced tons of ambiguity. I wasn't even sure who the good guy was anymore, or if there was a "good guy." It made me doubt everything. The online community was reeling with the possibility of a Matrix-within-a-Matrix. I didn't sleep for days.

 

I'll have to watch it again with this is mind. I have a tendency to find "signs, omens, synchronicities" everywhere, so who knows, I may end up loving it yet.

 

It didn't help that, as a philosophy geek, the Neo-Architect conversation was probably the coolest, most bizarre, thing I'd ever heard in a movie. I was unpacking the number symbolism in it for weeks. Especially 6 and 23. Any theories? Should we move this to another thread?

 

I don't remember the details of the conversation with the Architect. I was too busy being bummed out by virtual vampires and ghosts. I thought it was tacky. Also, I thought Mr Smith was one of the best written villains ever and I felt that the movie removed so much of his "evilness" and replaced it with sci-fi special effects. The ONE Mr Smith in The Matrix affected me more than the thousands of Mr. Smiths did in the sequels.

 

Number symbolism? Gonna have to watch it again obviously. What are your theories? I know 6 is symbolic, but why 23?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Transplanted from Fundamental Theology:] Everyone seemed only free to choose their Fate...there was no other Choice; whatever one chose one was Fated to choose and yet "Choice" was the chink in the machine as it were. But the only real choice was to be Aware or to Understand the inevitability of ones' choices. Pretty mind-boggling stuff.

"Everyone seemed only free to choose their Fate" and "Whatever one chose one was Fated to choose" are not the same thing -- unless by the second "choose" you mean what we appear to choose in the theater of the manifest realm. I'm guessing that's what you are saying.

 

The Oracle said to Neo: "You've already made your choice; now you've got to understand it."

 

The Merovingian said: "Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without ... soon it does not matter, soon the why and the reason are gone, and all that matters is the feeling itself. This is the nature of the universe. We struggle against it, we fight to deny it, but it is of course pretense, it is a lie. Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the 'why.'"

 

Same conclusion, drastically different premise. Merv is, of course, a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number symbolism? Gonna have to watch it again obviously. What are your theories? I know 6 is symbolic, but why 23?

 

Fred: Can you give the context in which these numbers were used? The number 23 would be a number 5 by reduction although with the "vibes" of the 23 influencing it. Most symbolic number systems follow a Pythagorean model...which means, and this is a gross oversimplification... that there are only 9 primary numbers...all other numbers are compounds of these...as 10 is a combination of 1 and 0 and etc. So, if you were interested in sniffing out the symbolic significance of the number 23, you would study its reduction number, which is 5, as well as the relationship between 2 and 3 (such as 3 through the agency of two), as well as the significance of 23 itself.

 

Paul Foster Case says this concerning the symbolic meaning of the primary number 5: "The root consciousness expressed through human personality is this One Law of mediation or adaptation. Man can change conditions. This is the secret of his power to realize freedom." Sounds like it could have been a line in Matrix doesn't it?

 

The number 6 is the number of equilibration, harmony, love, beauty, symmetry, polarity and so on.

 

I find this stuff irresistable myself...

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred: Can you give the context in which these numbers were used?

As the dialogue would be far too long, you may read it at your leisure here:

 

http://www.geocities.com/justin3eb/neoarchitect.html

 

Hmm, that's interesting stuff on the number 23 there. :) In the context of the dialogue, 23 is the number of individuals from the Matrix that the One is to select to rebuild Zion, after "dissemination of the code" he carries from the current manifestation, which will in turn yield the next One, and so forth. (This is the 6th "version.")

 

I thought the number 6 was pretty straightforward, referring to the number of humanity, the sixth day of Creation in Genesis, etc. Neo is the first One to display a peculiarly human dimension of love, rather than experiencing it "in a very general way" like his 5 predecessors.

 

My personal theory is that 23 is a genetic reference: the number of chromosomes in the human DNA sequence. The elegant "system" that the Architect and Oracle together have devised, is that the Matrix co-evolves with humanity to better anticipate humanity's needs for the "illusion of choice," and to keep them temporarily sedated and satisfied: even though inevitably the next One will arise to take on the cycle, and the system will have to be -- ta da -- reloaded.

 

Man, I need to watch this again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal theory is that 23 is a genetic reference: the number of chromosomes in the human DNA sequence. 

 

Interesting in light of the fact that the number 5 (2 + 3 = 5) is the number of humanity itself. Interesting too that the compound number 23 suggests a more mature and quiescent manifestation of the primary number 5. Five is on the whole a radical number of change, iconoclasm, and anarchy (think of "5" come to upset the order and stability of the number "4"), or anything that changes or expands the consciousness of man. Five is also the number of "dynamic Law" preceding from "Abstract Order" (4). Five is also thought to be the number of religion.

 

Interesting too that the 23 chosen to rebuild Zion will be comprised of 16 women and 7 men. Interesting immediately because the number 16 reduces to 7, a number widely regarded as the most "spiritual" of the primary numbers. According to Paul Case, "to the ancients, the number 7 represented temporary cessation, not final perfection. In Hebrew, the word for "seven" and that for "oath" are closely related, since the security and safety of a sworn contract were represented in Hebrew thought by the number "7". "Victory" is the word association most often attributed to this number.

 

It seems almost impossible that the number symbolism was not chosen deliberately by the writers of this film. Nevertheless, I've seen it happen that numbers, although chosen randomly, or unconsciously, on closer examination prove to be meaningful indeed.

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what movies I'll be watching this weekend.  :rolleyes:

 

 

Any of you guys ever read any Gurdieff or Ouspensky? The use of the word "Purpose" as a motif in the film "The Matrix: Reloaded" reminds me of some things I've read in these guys books. Both of these philosophers and spiritual teachers considered themselves "Christian" (and we all should recognize just how broad that definition can be by now) which is what makes it relevant to the discussion. The gist is that those with "Purpose" share a different fate from those without "Purpose", and these are "eaten" or dissolved into the miasmic energy field...at any rate, we are all Fuel according to these guys (Gurdieff's teaching is complex and a little inaccessible in my opinion, but apparently his influence has been considerable.)

 

My hunch is that if none of us have read these two writers/thinkers/teachers, the Wachowski Brothers have. Do you know anything about this Fred?...anybody ever mention either Gurdieff or Ouspensky in discussing this film?

 

 

Lily wrote :

It seems almost impossible that the number symbolism was not chosen deliberately by the writers of this film. Nevertheless, I've seen it happen that numbers, although chosen randomly, or unconsciously, on closer examination prove to be meaningful indeed.

 

 

This is what I keep thinking about the scriptures of the NT as I read these "quest" and historical Jesus scholarly books, and immediately comes up at first glance at Borg and his 'historical-metaphorical' approach. What I'm toying with is the idea that it is ,spiritually speaking, immaterial as to whether the synoptic gospels were written as Mythic Fictions or Historical-Factual Myth. Bottom line is that "we" have no more control over the one as the other. The accrued Meaning of any text is not strictly the product of any one individuals' consciousness. There are always unconscious and subconscious forces at work that have "Purpose" apart and above the intent of the individual writing it. This is as true of poetry as it is scripture as it is recorded history. A great poem is not great because the individual who wrote the poem is great, but because Something above and beyond the conscious intent of the poet "does that Voodoo that WhoDo so well". As Jung would say, "no one invents Myth".

 

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of you guys ever read any Gurdieff or Ouspensky? The use of the word "Purpose" as a motif in the film "The Matrix: Reloaded" reminds me of some things I've read in these guys books. ... My hunch is that if none of us have read these two writers/thinkers/teachers, the Wachowski Brothers have. Do you know anything about this Fred?...anybody ever mention either Gurdieff or Ouspensky in discussing this film?

I am familiar with their names from reading Inner Christianity, and from investigating Theosophy for a (very short) time. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the W. Bros were familiar with them, but I've never heard an explicit association.

 

What I'm toying with is the idea that it is ,spiritually speaking, immaterial as to whether the synoptic gospels were written as Mythic Fictions or Historical-Factual Myth. Bottom line is that "we" have no more control over the one as the other. ... As Jung would say, "no one invents Myth".

Exactly! What the author may or may not have meant is only one dimension of understanding, and often (but not always) the most mundane one. Actually, the very same approach underlies my use of many orthodox doctrinal formulations. I'm not necessarily going after what the theologians who formulated the dogmas meant by them, but rather what eternal truths are communcated through them -- sometimes in spite of their "obvious" meaning. It's pretty safe to say that I take Christian dogma in exactly this "Jungian" sense, of something presented to our consciousness, not invented by it. Dare we say... inspiration? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Exactly!  What the author may or may not have meant is only one dimension of understanding, and often (but not always) the most mundane one.  Actually, the very same approach underlies my use of many orthodox doctrinal formulations.  I'm not necessarily going after what the theologians who formulated the dogmas meant by them, but rather what eternal truths are communcated through them -- sometimes in spite of their "obvious" meaning.  It's pretty safe to say that I take Christian dogma in exactly this "Jungian" sense, of something presented to our consciousness, not invented by it.  Dare we say... inspiration? :)

 

 

Yup. Thing is tho...my intuition stops at "something presented to our consciousness, not invented by it" because I'm wanting to explore the possibility of both being true. Something is both "presented" and "invented" at once. One can't really separate the poem from the poet and yet the poem transcends the poet as soon as it becomes a poem. The poem is both a human product AND a divine product at once. Still...I agree wholeheartedly that "eternal truths are communicated "through" them---sometimes in spite of their "obvious" meaning." But I think this is true of all human creation to varying degree. The "fate" of our creations transcend both our intent and our lifespans; nothing we do belongs only to us, as nothing we are originates with us. Maybe I am only muddying the waters with these musings...but something...a "stop in the spirit" if you will, makes me question whether we are indeed mere "transmitters" or rather "co-creators" of the sacred.

 

"What frightens us is not the thought that we are powerless, but rather that we are powerful beyond our own comprehension."

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Thing is tho...my intuition stops at "something presented to our consciousness, not invented by it" because I'm wanting to explore the possibility of both being true. Something is both "presented" and "invented" at once. One can't really separate the poem from the poet and yet the poem transcends the poet as soon as it becomes a poem. The poem is both a human product AND a divine product at once.

I guess I was thinking more in the sense that the Divine Self at the core of our Being presents the truth to our "natural self," who often mistakes it for its own invention, and distorts it in the process.

 

"What frightens us is not the thought that we are powerless, but rather that we are powerful beyond our own comprehension."

i’m afraid i can be devil man

and i’m scared to be divine

- peter gabriel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service