We need a language with which to talk. For the purpose of this post, I choose The Matrix, because most of us have seen it, and it hopefully left a valuable impression on us. In effect, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m choosing The Matrix as our “Bible”, our corpus, defining the language for this post. My other favourite choice is The Lord of the Rings. A beautiful piece of work, that. Speak friend and enter. At times I also like drawing on Douglas Adams or Arthur C Clarke, or practically any other good piece of art. (This correlates with my suggestion that each religion is a different language, built on the corpus of some sacred text.)
The empiricists are the people that are happy with this reality. They are the people that take the Blue pill. Ignorance is bliss. Are they ignorant? Or are they rather the enlightened ones? The empiricists intuitively sense the futility, as measured in reality, um, “this reality”, of taking the Red pill. The empiricists are those that have accepted this reality, and obeyed God’s command to not take a bite from the apple. Neo comes to the same realisation in the third Matrix movie.
However, as we should all know, from either our “secular” knowledge, or our “Christian” heritage, or I hope from some other element of other faith-languages, the very act of making the rule “thou shalt not take the red pill” encourages an act of defiance. “Thou shalt not take a bite from that red apple.” That legalistic “covenant” does therefore not work. Human inquisitiveness and self-awareness have reached the point where we always ask the question. We always ponder the apple. We are ever curious about the Red pill. Even if it is “worthless” in this reality that has been given to us. In this particular Matrix. For this very reason, there will always be people looking for “truth” that transcends this reality. They will be exploring, philosophically, the realms that experimental science has not yet been able to crack, though the progress that has been made is remarkable. Fret not, dear murkies, it will never be completely bright. You do not have to fight the Brights.
So what do you do with the “mystics”, those that look beyond empiricism? Let them play! No harm in that. No harm, until they start killing you or hurting your children. This is where the role of the “mystic guru” enters the picture. The good mystics know how to keep the seekers happy, and productive, in this reality. Or at the very least, how to keep them occupied, that we do not end up hurting one another. The bad mystics encourage people to fly planes into buildings, or use the “power” they have found, consciously or unconsciously, to start wars. They use mystical power to start wars about things in this reality. Say, um, oil? That brings the mystical war into this reality, where the empiricists care about it.
There are ancient mystics, but there are contemporary mystics as well. The Wachowski Brothers are mystics that are doing very good work through their medium. They have succeeded in translating much of the essence of the Christian tradition into contemporary language. They are writing scripture.
Here would be one piece of the puzzle in my dream for world peace, from the sides of those that call themselves “atheists”: I wish they would rather identify their God, and cite that, rather than “there is no God”. The statement “there is no God” is the polar opposite of fundamentalism. These two sides polarise one another. How will the disarmament happen? In a sudden annihilation? In a gradual disarmament? Who will make the first move?
·
20 responses so far ↓
1 Negate // Jan 7, 2008 at 2:51 pm
What a brilliant post hugo, even though i differ on some of the symbolism.
Acceptance is the only way of peace.
2 Ben // Jan 7, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Looking at how difficult it is to arrive at true (or true-ish) beliefs about empirical things, I see my non-empirical musings as so likely to be wrong as to be worthless. I don’t see this as taking the blue pill or choosing ignorance. I see it as accepting my limited ability to overcome fundamental ignorance.
Most religious people are not mystics, though. They use the language of empiricists and believe in empirical miracles, authoritarian ethics, etc.
I don’t see this as helpful at all. My wife might appreciate the title, I guess.
3 Lois Wright // Jan 7, 2008 at 9:53 pm
The Matrix is quite an awesome movie, and a perfect analogy for philosophical and religious discussion.
however, I doubt the Wachowski’s believed much in what the wrote, they stole much of their ideas from many resources, and amalgamated a Screenplay based on the advice of a college student, sean le` david.
The Wachowski’s just finished Speed Racer!? They wanna promote gas guzzling car racing to our children.
What a waste of “talent ” the Wachowski’s turned out to be.
4 Hugo // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:11 am
I hear you, Ben. I still call that taking the blue pill though.
The route of the Red pill takes you on quite a roller-coaster ride. I’ve finally found enough answers that I know I will never have all the answers. The question I’ve decided to not ask, is “who is pulling the strings?!” It could be me, it could be everyone around me, everyone I know. Choose the former, and I take another absurd ride away from reality, choose the latter and I can trust no-one anymore. (I lost my trust in everyone, including my own family, for a while.) So now I just root myself in empiricism, and sit back and laugh about the rest.
Yea, the “religious” are between two realities. The “real” one, of the empiricists, and “another” one, which empiricists call a “fantasy world”. My conclusion is that I can just cordially invite them to join us in “this reality”, and explain to them what “this reality” is, and what it is not. Hmm, long story.
With regards to “your God”, I don’t think your wife is your God, but she is definitely a part of it. I could recommend you look into humanism, make “reason and compassion” your “God”, or “the golden rule” (the danger with the golden rule without something more: how do you want yourself treated?) In terms of your relationship, you could consider “God” to be “you, your wife, and the act/verb of communication”. And we communicate in many ways. Physical, verbal, visual, etc… That is three components. Keep all three. I.e. don’t worship sex, don’t worship yourself, don’t worship yourself… a nice balance of three components, and you’re at the Christian doctrine of the trinity. Um, mother+father, child is born, another set of three. But we digress.
I wish atheists could say “I believe in empiricism”, or “I believe in love”, or “I believe in communication” or “humanism”, or whatever, rather than saying “there is no God”. Let “us theists” fix our screwup. We’ve evolved the theistic language into a deadlock, in part due to the orgy of the culture clash. The memetic orgy of the internet, gives you STD’s, memetic STD’s, the most common of which is known as “fundamentalism”.
Lois, thanks, pity that, then. “I see God” in “The Matrix”. One can try to trace the source of their inspiration, or one can choose theistic language and call that trilogy “truly inspired”, even if they did not fully understand it themselves.
HTH.
5 Clare // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:40 am
You ask how this tension between the theists and atheists may be resolved. Maybe we should just accept that everyone looks for their own truth. They take what life gives them and follow what feeds their mind and heart. There is no correct viewpoint but all the value and beauty comes from the dialogue. That’s what makes us who we are.
6 Hugo // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:53 am
Hear hear!
Nevertheless, we don’t want to get killed, and we like our empirical, scientific reality. As such, we will continue offering to teach science, and if our reality is being threatened by those that choose not to accept it, we will reach out to them and invite them cordially to get with the program!
Personally, I’d love to see a smile on *everyone’s* faces, at least some of the time. (All of the time is impossible, if you aim to have some people smiling all the time, then there will be some people never smiling.)
7 Steve // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:56 am
“The empiricists are those that have accepted this reality, and obeyed God’s command to not take a bite from the apple. Neo comes to the same realisation in the third Matrix movie.”
Please explain? I admit that despite reading numerous articles on the symbolism of the last 2 movies, I never really got them as a whole (individual references, I could handle). And I got the first movie on an action movie level.
Can you talk to me in _my_ language?
8 Hugo // Jan 8, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Steve, I think you’re still developing your language. You’re still looking for God. Though how could I really know? This makes it a little harder. I do not know your thoughts. But let me try the words of science/”reality”/empiricism, with a little mix of Biblical imagery I know you know:
You have your senses. You have reality that you can test, empirically. Using science. This reality can be accepted, as is, in which case God respects our choice and lets us live in a naturalistic universe without messing with the “laws of physics”. This does not mean God does not exist, it means we have finally let God have a day of rest, and accepted the Garden of Eden we are living in.
By continuing to look for the supernatural, you reject this naturalistic reality, and you take the Red pill. Neo took the Red pill. Once he took the Red pill, however, he had a choice: encourage/force everyone else to also take the Red pill, by fighting this reality, this matrix, or accept that each should have their own choice. And this is the choice that Neo made, as well as Jesus according to “The Secret Message of Jesus”: this reality is with us now. Let’s stop looking for another, and play our part to make this reality more bearable. Let us bring heaven here, to earth. Let the Kingdom come, on earth, as it is in heaven. Let us stop striving to find heaven.
And voilá, we’re back in Eden.
Make any sense now? Let me know what you miss.
True enlightenment is the realisation that everyone else is more enlightened than you are. Hehe. Humbling. I have to keep on reminding me of this fact. So either way, I don’t really know where you are. This is the one particular thing I have decided to accept, and not ask questions about. It is up to you to tell me.
9 Steve // Jan 8, 2008 at 4:51 pm
“True enlightenment is the realisation that everyone else is more enlightened than you are.”
Reminder: you’re talking to a “modernist”, not a Zen Buddhist
10 Hugo // Jan 8, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Hehehehehe…
11 Hugo // Jan 8, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Here’s a question, Steve… am I talking to you, are you the modernist, or are we talking to a hypothetical modernist? You and I trying to figure out how to speak the language of the hypothetical modernist?
Two guru’s on a mountain top… I really think two guru’s sitting on a mountain top might be more useful in some cases than the traditional lone-guru.
The seeker climbs the mountain, and asks the lone guru a question. The lone guru sends the seeker back down, with a new question, even more baffling.
The seeker climbs the mountain, and asks the two gurus a question. The two gurus give the seeker two answers. The seeker gets to choose which of the two gurus to believe, or gets to choose to ponder that new question, as he climbs back down.
What do you think?
12 Steve // Jan 9, 2008 at 8:29 am
I think it would be better if the guru’s avoided the mountain-tops altogether. They’ll likely get mobbed by hermits.
Modernism is a good “language” to use when communicating to me. When you go all Zen and baffling (which you do quite often lately), you tend to lose me. Hah - baffling: there’s a new label for you
13 Hugo // Jan 9, 2008 at 10:15 am
Labels are useful: let someone label you, then it helps you understand how they think. I.e. I should now be less baffling.
Less baffling.
Right… so what was the question again?
14 Ben // Jan 9, 2008 at 3:38 pm
There is no way I would consider reason and compassion a “God.” The sentence doesn’t even make sense. I already consider myself a humanist.
15 Hugo // Jan 9, 2008 at 3:40 pm
OK, cool, no problem.
You empiricist you…
16 Ben // Jan 9, 2008 at 4:49 pm
We do say other things than ‘there is no God.’ Such as the minimum statement of humanism, which I will make even more minimal:
“Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities.”
“Theists” have had several millenia to fix them, and in my lifetime, have done nothing at all to earn trust in their ability to fix their screwups. The screwups have not been trending toward being fixed by theists, they have been trending worse. There isn’t even any significant movement in that direction.
As I put it in a question about ‘what was your tipping point into activism’ - speaking to theists:
“You have abused your privilege of not being challenged on having an invisible friend who can do magic. Grow up.”
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3998177&postcount=3
17 Hugo // Jan 9, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Yes, I agree theists should be challenged, indeed.
BTW, in the line of theists finding a way out of their mess, the emerging church shows great promise. In my opinion. I’ll share more of what’s happening in my neighbourhood later.
There are two kinds of activism. Either way, keep the satire coming. Adding some pressure helps the theists to grow up. It helps the theists find God, in fact! Something many of them are desperately searching for. Hehe…
18 gerhard // Jan 11, 2008 at 3:14 pm
i dont understand.. i see theists/mystics as the ones taking the blue pill. they are choosing to invoke something higher to explain away reality.. ie. offering explanationwithout understanding or merit. Explaining the world by interchangable delusion rather than actuality. the point of breaking the matrix is to find the truth irrespective of how inconvinent/contradictory it is to your current world view.
isnt that what morphius means by the matrix being all around us, evne in church ?
i think the speech starts with him lamenting that neo knows something is ‘f’d in the a’ with the world as it is and even if he can’t proove it he can sense it.
i would equate this to an empiricist understanding that the world he lives in , ie. mystisism dominated world and the world he has worked out or can proove are two differrent things… ie. awareness of the duality between wanting to know about the rabbits hole vs a life chasing windmills. its kinda like knowing you are an animal but recognizing the leap and bounds that seperate us from ‘other animals’ and there for not seeing youself as an animal.
i think in this case you shouldnt consider empericism as a viewpoint limited to the directly messuable but rather a viewpoint just as abstract as theism because most of the time its about predictions and indirect logic.
19 Hugo // Jan 11, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Are you sure you don’t understand? Your comment seems to indicate that you understand more than your first three words seem to indicate…
20 Meh and Lah, Reloaded // Feb 23, 2008 at 1:16 pm
[...] experienced realities, are still ruled by their Meh. They need something that resonates with that, and Lah-obsession will be inadequate. Their dreamers will dream, their artists will create, and they will come to understand the [...]
Leave a Comment