Humour me for a second people.
Does anyone here believe that the matrix trilogy should be taken literally (in reference to its explicit references)? For example, if we're looking for the answer to Neo's code (Arch. Speech), does someone believe there should be a reference to a bunch of zeros and ones somewhere in the story.
If the answer is completely within the subtext of the story, would it do anyone any good to answer this question? Because if you understand the subtext, then you wouldn't ask the question.
And, with all the fan fiction and media hoopla out there, how many trust themselves to know what parts were truth or fiction?
Or, does none of this matter, and any answer is as good as the any other?
Neo's code can be thought of as a binary file, or an ineffable revelation.
What's cool about the matrix universe is that it doesn't just muse about possible technologies, nor is it only an elaborate metaphor. It's philosophy directs the action in a plausible, if improbable world.
Everyone will interpret the films in their own way, like the movies interpret the world in their own way. The creators realize this, hence part of why they don't talk too much about their specific message. Viewers may find something that was intended to be there, or something entirely different.
Jecai wrote: Neo's code can be thought of as a binary file, or an ineffable revelation. What's cool about the matrix universe is that it doesn't just muse about possible technologies, nor is it only an elaborate metaphor. It's philosophy directs the action in a plausible, if improbable world. Everyone will interpret the films in their own way, like the movies interpret the world in their own way. The creators realize this, hence part of why they don't talk too much about their specific message. Viewers may find something that was intended to be there, or something entirely different.
Jecai wrote: ...100% opposite of what I would have said given the same question. What would you have said?
I would have said that the story's truth is hidden within the subtext. And, until you understand the subtext there's no way in hell or otherwise, you'd understand the story...esp. the sequel's story.
Your previous answer does lend itself to a few questions though. Why would anyone write a movie with 0 meaning that is, a movie with multiple meanings has story? If it is for the sake of taking the art in a new direction, what direction would that be? Could it be that you've taken what you understand and just run with it? Could there be more?
Yeah, I partially agree with your code explanation. Please expound on your code explanation.
Message Edited by RainKingX on 08-19-2005 02:05 PM
Jecai wrote: ...the story's truth is hidden within the subtext. What do you believe the story's truth is? One can imagine a world where data is fundamental and requires no physical implementation, but this is not that world. Instructions for electron guns to illuminate a computer screen, thought, sensory input, emotion, all depend on electromagnetic and chemical interactions. The fundamental units of these interactions e.g. bits, qubits, DNA, 'carry' only simple information. Interrelating these units (coding) allows more complex structures to be formed. The code doesn't have to be binary, and the brain might use a system quite unlike that of contemporary computers. I would think to save power the machines could employ the unused 90% of each host's brain to help run the simulation. If there are external servers, I doubt they're like the clunky transistor computers of today. But information in any language can be converted to any other language. So Neo's code could potentially be rendered in binary. If you're asking whether 'the code' is integrated into Neo's mind or apart from it? I believe it's a piece of his consciousness, derived from his experience and contemplation, like any of one's thoughts. As to what the Neo v. Smith codes actually are, I think Smith is absolute sameness, the kind of uniformity that kills. Perfection in the 1st Matrix killed 'entire crops'. Neo is conflict, and thereby life. This assumes that Smith and the other machines also need conflict for cognitive survival. Interestingly, the above is almost identical to a possible interpretation of the '97 End of Evangelion film. One's views on the films' meaning depends on one's view of life in general. The Wachowskis may have their own idea of why things worked out the way they did. But the films let people decide for themselves.
Listen, the brothers want you to keep your mind open so when the correct theory comes along you may hear it and listen, and maybe even do something about it. This doesn't mean there isn't a correct and coherent storyline. Furthermore, there are people who talk about it correctly all the time. They won't do so here because the (current) matrix fandom has convinced themselves that there isn't a complete line of thinking here.
Sorry, Jecai, if you read my interpretation of the Arch. speech on the former board, you know exactly what I know, not believe. I was thinking of answering the code question, as I left the answer out of my previous posts, but after running into some of the brats here and learning that some people still believe that the films have no meaning. Why waste my time?
I just wanted to see what some people thought. Thx.
I didn't state that 'the films have no meaning'. They're rife with it, and I've posted my thoughts on this particular subject. I don't understand your resistance to posting yours. Why are you now so concerned about wasting time if you've already posted four times on this thread?
I will gladly listen to whatever you have to say. I'm not trying to force anyone to accept what I post; I just like discussing the movies.
If you believe that I'm simply unworthy of being spoken to, I guess you won't be convinced otherwise.
I agree with a lot of what you posted on the architect. What I disagree with are some of the subsequent posts about the movies' commentary on the contemporary world. These contained a fatalism that I don't find in the films. I also don't know where references to 'Illuminati' came from.
Have you spoken with the creators or others who know the 'authoritative' story on the films? If not, how do you know what the Wachowskis were thinking?
RainKingX, I'm currently in the process of trying to figure out the nature of the code Neo carries. I've gone through several different theories and believed some of them at one time or another. But every time I really stop and think about some of the things that were said in the movies and the outcome of bringing those statements to their logical conclusion, then I have to start questioning things all over again because now all of a sudden my latest theory doesn't make sense.
I'll give you an example. Right now my current understanding of the code that Neo carries is that it is a glitch caused by the 1% who refuse the Matrix. This glitch works like yeast in the sense that it is not static but grows and grows over time. Instead of causing the Matrix to crash suddenly (like the first two versions of the Matrix seem to have), it happens slowly over time.
Apparently the Architect is unable to simply delete this glitch or overwrite it or whatever, but he has somehow found a way to attach it to a human host--the One. It occurred to me that the One has most likely been one of the 1%. So either the Architect has always been lucky in attaching the glitch to a person who just so happened to also be one of the 1%, or he has the ability to know who has refused the Matrix and who hasn't. Either that or he has the ability to make someone refuse the Matrix. I never thought of that possibility until just now.
Anyway, I'm rambling on now. Basically I want to hear your take on it, because I try to hear as many thoughts on this subject as possible. The only way I've learned anything from these forums is by listening to lots and lots of different ideas and opinions. Truth has a way of revealing itself, even if it's in little bits and pieces. Please share what you've learned thus far on your journey down the rabbit hole.
Lock: Not everyone believe what you believe.Morpheus: My Beliefs do not require them to.
Message Edited by Phadeos on 08-20-2005 05:39 PM
Message Edited by Phadeos on 08-20-2005 05:40 PM
The above isn't a 'happy' statement, and I don't think the films try to be recklessly optomistic.
My statement is intended to be realistic about life in general. There's no guarantee that one will meet with happiness; after all, life is suffering. But one chooses to create their own suffering.
In saying this I don't mean to detract from the films' very real and relevant messages for society. 'Matrices' are everywhere. We build them, and are often trapped in their structures. We also learn from them.
So beware totalitarian states and bullets in the head. But at the end of the day, the universe is what it is.
"Things aren't different. Things are things."
"And where does the newborn go from here? The net is vast and infinite."
