Holy s***! It's been a while since we've had to blog. These things went to complete waste. Oct 23rd was my last. Mj brought up something which intrigued me more than anything we've 'learned' so far about modernity and modernism.
He said some psychologist believed that there is a relation between trying to get a kid to believe in Santa Claus and getting them to stay in their lane when they are driving. Somehow, if they can believe in Santa Claus, they can believe they need to stay in their lane. He said that on the highway, you could essentially drive wherever you wanted. But yet you can't.
All too often I have absolutely nothing to say about an issue. Once again, I really have no opinion. This idea just simply intrigued me. I feel this barrier in my mind. And while being a great name for a potential song, it troubles me. I'll continue to use the driving example. I have tried on many occasion to simply let go of the wheel, much like that great scene from Fight Club where Tyler tells Edward Norton to "stop trying to control things and just let go!" I can't do it. The momment my car begins to veer out of lane, off the road or anywhere that it's not suppose to be I have to grab the wheel. I feel like I have no control. True control that is. Maybe it's just self preservation, but I can't help feel like this is a momment where my lack of will shines through and I can actually see that there are days that I am suppose to make back to my driveway.
Maybe one day I'll let go and actually swerve. Maybe one day I hit a man dressed like Santa Claus because I drifted out of my lane.
I don't think it's because I believed in Santa Claus, cause I never did. My parents thought it was kinda cruel or something to make me believe something not true. Yet I can stay in my lane.
On another issue, why can I seemingly trust every driver on the road not to hit me as they pass. I could kill anyone by just flipping the wheel left at the last second, slamming my car head on into someone else who would have no time to react. But I would never be able to do that. My brain wouldn't let me. So can anyone else do that? Do we trust each other, or just our own subconscious? I trust you not to hit me and you trust me not to hit you. Or do we simply have no choice in what we do?
Those white painted lines are walls. The double yellow ones too. They are barriers. But are they in my mind or yours?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Mmm, Secular Humanist Pie
I believe the song American Pie by Don Mclean is a secular humanist worldview. Under God and the universe, I see an absense of God. God has gone away, evident by the lyrics "they [father, son, holy ghost] caught the last train for the coast". Afther "the day the music died " humans are the ones in control. Under Humanity and Identity I believe that there is purpose to humanity. Their nature is to live and die. This is shown when he half mockingly states "do you have faith in God above, if the Bible tells you so? ... Can music save your mortal soul...?" It's almost like he thinks that music can save your soul as much as God can. Under Conflict and Suffering there is much dispair in this piece. The chorus shows this with the lines "bye bye miss american pie..." and "this'll be the day that I die". It seems like because the music has died and there is no God, the point of life is non existant as well. For Hope and Redemption, he believes the only way is to bring back the music. He sings "I can still remember how that music used to make me smile." For Values and Morals, there is no value in love or justice when he sings about "the courtroom was adjourned; no verdict was returned", and "a generation lost in space with no time left to start again" and "I knew I was out of luck the day the music died". Lastly, for Truth and Reality, there is acknowledgment to things other than just physical things but they are used figuratively. It speaks about the devil but that is only to show the connection of God to music and how he fled when it died. I see one of the only absolute truths according to this piece is that the music is dead, and with it many other sared 'truths' like God, justice, love and peace. I feel this piece reflects the secular humanist viewpoint ultimately because of the depressing feel of the song. This inevitably comes out of the atheistic, naturalistic worldview because without God and absolute truth there is no hope.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Neo versus Dorthy
Let's compare and contrast how reality is treated in The Matrix and The Wizard of Oz, shall we? To begin we will have to step back from specific moments in each film and look at the big picture of each story.
In The Matrix, reality is defined as two specific "planes", the real world and the matrix itself. In the Wizard of Oz, there is distinction (although much less) between two different worlds, the actual world and the dream world Dorthy creates. A difference lies in the portrayal of that reality though. For instance, the matrix is designed to mimick the real world exactly even though it is not the 'true' reality. It does this so much so that those who are part of the matrix do not even know that they are living in a 'false' world. In the world of Oz, everything is unrealistic in its portrayal. There are mythical beings like witches, flying monkeys, emerald cities, talking animals and munchkins (yes, I know midgets do exist but they don't all have high pitched voices and dance with lollipops. Oh and side note: Julia Morse, it's Lollipop GUILD, not Lollipop KIDS. That's just ridiculous).
Moving on, a similarity exists there also. As mentioned before, those in the matrix think they are living real life. In Oz, Dorthy does not think she is dreaming; she really does believe she is in this magical land and needs to get home. This brings up the definition of reality according to each piece. Both pieces in a way have the idea that whatever looks to your eyes, sounds to your ears, feels to your skin, tastes to your tongue and so on, is in fact what reality is. In the context of each story, the matrix is Neo's reality and Oz is Dorthy's reality until they figure out how to escape. Therefore, each piece has the idea of control over your own reality. As soon as Neo understands who he is, he can manipulate the matrix (which we have now defined as his reality). Dorthy figures out that she always had the power to go home. The answer lay within her.
A main difference however, is who created the reality. In The Matrix, a computer system created the matrix to enslave humans and thrive off their energy. This could almost be looked on as a deist god. The computer created the reality and then stepped away, only intervening through the agents occasionally. However, in The Wizard of Oz, Dorthy creates the reality for herself, (because in fact it is a dream sequence). This is more cosmic humanist, because then we are all god.
In closing, The Matrix is a friggin' awesome film and it makes me think. Top marks for the Wachowski brothers!
In The Matrix, reality is defined as two specific "planes", the real world and the matrix itself. In the Wizard of Oz, there is distinction (although much less) between two different worlds, the actual world and the dream world Dorthy creates. A difference lies in the portrayal of that reality though. For instance, the matrix is designed to mimick the real world exactly even though it is not the 'true' reality. It does this so much so that those who are part of the matrix do not even know that they are living in a 'false' world. In the world of Oz, everything is unrealistic in its portrayal. There are mythical beings like witches, flying monkeys, emerald cities, talking animals and munchkins (yes, I know midgets do exist but they don't all have high pitched voices and dance with lollipops. Oh and side note: Julia Morse, it's Lollipop GUILD, not Lollipop KIDS. That's just ridiculous).
Moving on, a similarity exists there also. As mentioned before, those in the matrix think they are living real life. In Oz, Dorthy does not think she is dreaming; she really does believe she is in this magical land and needs to get home. This brings up the definition of reality according to each piece. Both pieces in a way have the idea that whatever looks to your eyes, sounds to your ears, feels to your skin, tastes to your tongue and so on, is in fact what reality is. In the context of each story, the matrix is Neo's reality and Oz is Dorthy's reality until they figure out how to escape. Therefore, each piece has the idea of control over your own reality. As soon as Neo understands who he is, he can manipulate the matrix (which we have now defined as his reality). Dorthy figures out that she always had the power to go home. The answer lay within her.
A main difference however, is who created the reality. In The Matrix, a computer system created the matrix to enslave humans and thrive off their energy. This could almost be looked on as a deist god. The computer created the reality and then stepped away, only intervening through the agents occasionally. However, in The Wizard of Oz, Dorthy creates the reality for herself, (because in fact it is a dream sequence). This is more cosmic humanist, because then we are all god.
In closing, The Matrix is a friggin' awesome film and it makes me think. Top marks for the Wachowski brothers!
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Mammon - Paradise Lost
Mammon is a demonic character briefly discussed in book 1 of Paradise Lost. According to the story, he is the least of all the fallen angels in Hell. It says that even when he was part of the heavenly kingdom, he was always "downward bent". He seems to have an admiration for gold and riches. He apparantly leads the demon horde into the center of Hell where they begin to dig a sizable hole in the ground, mining minerals to build a temple or meeting hall in Hell.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Worldview in Wizard of Oz
Ahh, the classic movie The Wizard of Oz. I think The Wizard of Oz is mostly postmodern. I see a distortion of actual reality when Dorthy is in Oz. Come on, munchkins? Giant flowers? Witches? Talking apple trees? Magic shoes? Flying monkeys? Random singing? The whole freakin' story is a dream sequence. They make up their own reality for the purpose of the story and it essentially turns out to be a pointless adventure. In the real world there was no progress because she was in a head trauma coma. This is a postmodern ideal. Also the wizard himself is just a man who was falsely elevated to a 'god' like status. This agrees mostly with the postmodern view that God does not exist because like Friedrick Nietzsche said "God is dead". There are other worldviews woven into the story I think but it is mostly a postmodern work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)