The Matrix, Philosophy & Mass Manipulation (documentary)

[InterestedParticipant]

Scholars, philosophers and theorists deconstruct the intellectual underpinnings of the Matrix trilogy, albeit, from an elitist perspective. While fascinating, I think you'll see that they're pushing new age fantasies, trying to sell the audience on this idea that man can create their own realities (code for "there is no universal truth" and therefore "all truths can be created" which leads to "no truth"). I'm curious on others thoughts as you watch this documentary.

YouTube - Return to the source part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ysbczEYvKY)

YouTube - Return to the source part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnn3Y9v_cww)

YouTube - Return to the source part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nP3UC1liX8)

YouTube - Return to the source part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnxMUDwfPB0)

YouTube - Return to the source part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3CgpjHcnmE)

YouTube - Return to the source part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_t2ZaoYo8Y)

YouTube - Return to the source part 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j62u83seEQ)

YouTube - Return to the source part 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR2tr702eVU)

[InterestedParticipant]

In part 7, this documentary tells us that Neo ("The One") sacrifices himself for the good of the system, so that the system can be incorporate "Love" & "Karma" into its programming (at which time the system reboots itself).

The philosophers argue that Smith & Neo are fighting with the system because they are NOT integrated into the system. But once they finally let go and submit to the system, there is harmony.

I interpret this as the NWO telling society that they must submit to the system or there will be constant conflict.

[zach]

We create our own realities with our thoughts; that's it.

The "New Age" movement has potential to help people, but it's being hijacked, and whenever a proponent talks about "we are all one", someone tends to scream "SOCIALIST!!" and dismisses it.

Anything else.. well, believe what you want, obviously. I'm quite interested in watching this.

[InterestedParticipant]

We create our own realities with our thoughts; that's it.

The "New Age" movement has potential to help people, but it's being hijacked, and whenever a proponent talks about "we are all one", someone tends to scream "SOCIALIST!!" and dismisses it.

Anything else.. well, believe what you want, obviously. I'm quite interested in watching this.
Creating our own realities leads to ever changing truth => NO TRUTH!

[Kraig]

I got through part 4 and it seems pretty bogus, too much of a mixing pot of philosophy. Should I keep watching or is it more of the same?

[InterestedParticipant]

I got through part 4 and it seems pretty bogus, too much of a mixing pot of philosophy. Should I keep watching or is it more of the same?
More of the same, but it may be worth struggling through it because it continues to provide perspective on how the elite think, and what they were really trying to sell the public in this movie series. They're a pretty sick lot, really, but they certainly know how to dress-it-up to deceive and make it palatable.

[InterestedParticipant]

Here, I found the entire 50+minute documentary in a single file.

Return to the Source: Philosophy & the Matrix (2004) (http://blip.tv/file/2495398)

[ScoutsHonor]

I got through part 4 and it seems pretty bogus, too much of a mixing pot of philosophy.

I think they are far less subtle-and-clever than they think they are.
All that's necessary is that one stay "in focus" when reading.

[Kraig]

I think they are far less subtle-and-clever than they think they are.
All that's necessary is that one stay "in focus" when reading.

I don't understand at all.

[zach]

Creating our own realities leads to ever changing truth => NO TRUTH!

then comes the question, "what is truth?" and how we know that the truth we propose is right.

[ScoutsHonor]

I don't understand at all.Well, the purpose of movies like The Matrix is to influence your ideas,
change the way you think. IOW, to get you to think what the film-maker wants you to think, which will benefit his goals and most likely not be to
_your_ benefit.

This kind of manipulation can be defeated, imo, simply by staying
mentally awake when reading or watching their movies/tv, etc., IOW, their propaganda..

Hope this makes my comment clearer! :(;)

[Kraig]

It does, thanks.

[InterestedParticipant]

then comes the question, "what is truth?" and how we know that the truth we propose is right.
I think there are probably a lot of different ways to come at this answer, and overall this is an excellent topic of discussion and debate. But one might say there are infinite "truths" and that there is no one "right" truth. In our case, our founders developed a system of truths that, for probably the first time in humanity, honored the individual and created real liberties via a system of protections that has taken the elite over 200 years to unwind. Our framework of Universal Truths are wrapped up in the Declaration of Independent, Magna Carta and the writings of our founders as well as countless others. If the public would have done a better job defending this set of Universal Truths, and not let other men attempt to modify them, then we'd be in a far better situation then we are today.

But the flip side is that once men are allowed to think that they are Gods (ie new age movement), and therefore can create reality anytime they please, then I predict that the most powerful in society are the ones who will dominate reality creation and will create realities that most benefit themselves. It becomes a slippery slope, with no baseline for the weak individual who is merely attempting to pursue life, liberty & happiness.

Comment?


Well, the purpose of movies like The Matrix is to influence your ideas,
change the way you think. IOW, to get you to think what the film-maker wants you to think, which will benefit his goals and most likely not be to
_your_ benefit.

This kind of manipulation can be defeated, imo, simply by staying
mentally awake when reading or watching their movies/tv, etc., IOW, their propaganda..

Hope this makes my comment clearer! :(;)
Yes, I agree with this post. The first step is to search out the exoteric meaning, to seek the double speak and the layers of symbolism. I think that is over half the work. Once your mind is conditioned to seek this out, you will see what you had previously missed.

It is why the attack on our education system has been so vicious and so complete. The public is supposed to live in a simulacrum (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206336)created by those that wish to control reality. We are not supposed to see the system, nor even question it.

[zach]

I think there are probably a lot of different ways to come at this answer, and overall this is an excellent topic of discussion and debate. But one might say there are infinite "truths" and that there is no one "right" truth. In our case, our founders developed a system of truths that, for probably the first time in humanity, honored the individual and created real liberties via a system of protections that has taken the elite over 200 years to unwind. Our framework of Universal Truths are wrapped up in the Declaration of Independent, Magna Carta and the writings of our founders as well as countless others. If the public would have done a better job defending this set of Universal Truths, and not let other men attempt to modify them, then we'd be in a far better situation then we are today.

But the flip side is that once men are allowed to think that they are Gods (ie new age movement), and therefore can create reality anytime they please, then I predict that the most powerful in society are the ones who will dominate reality creation and will create realities that most benefit themselves. It becomes a slippery slope, with no baseline for the weak individual who is merely attempting to pursue life, liberty & happiness.

Comment?

You do present a good point. That's one reason why I wouldn't associate all of my ideas with that movement because if we believe that we have the potential to be above what we are now, with different realities possibly manifesting and appearing to be more self-serving rather than self-less serving, then a problem might arise when the "dominant reality" makers choose to make themselves gods of others, and this is when a form of tyranny (whether mental, metaphysical, etc) might arise.

[InterestedParticipant]

You do present a good point. That's one reason why I wouldn't associate all of my ideas with that movement because if we believe that we have the potential to be above what we are now, with different realities possibly manifesting and appearing to be more self-serving rather than self-less serving, then a problem might arise when the "dominant reality" makers choose to make themselves gods of others, and this is when a form of tyranny (whether mental, metaphysical, etc) might arise.
Can you expand on this for me, I'm not sure I'm understanding your post.

[jm1776]

But the flip side is that once men are allowed to think that they are Gods (ie new age movement), [...]

Allowed to think? Wow... So a preferred course would be to shape mens' thoughts towards a more preferred and beneficial way of thinking? I thought that sort of manipulation is what you are so dedicated against.

[zach]

Can you expand on this for me, I'm not sure I'm understanding your post.

I'm not quite sure if I understand what I just said either. :o

I was expanding upon how the ones who want to become "gods" through whichever means have the potential to keep the people who are trying to enjoy their lives and not wanting to control others in a rut.

Though, if one starts thinking they are better than another simply due to a different course of thinking, then trouble can start.

[InterestedParticipant]

Allowed to think? Wow... So a preferred course would be to shape mens' thoughts towards a more preferred and beneficial way of thinking? I thought that sort of manipulation is what you are so dedicated against.
Thinking one is a God means manipulation or domination over others.... it means creating an artificial reality, a simulacrum.

Our founders' system is based upon basic fundamental truths, or the system breaks down.

People are free to choose to whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe on another's ability to do the same. However, what we have here is the illusion of choice via deception .... through the creation of Full Spectrum Simulacrum, where industry, government, church, nonprofit institutions, culture industry, etc. collaborate to build that Simulacrum to dominate the public. That's an entirely different animal than merely having a discussion about ones ability to think.

[InterestedParticipant]

I'm not quite sure if I understand what I just said either. :o

I was expanding upon how the ones who want to become "gods" through whichever means have the potential to keep the people who are trying to enjoy their lives and not wanting to control others in a rut.

Though, if one starts thinking they are better than another simply due to a different course of thinking, then trouble can start.
You got it.... I completely agree.

Elites are taught that there are two classes of people, them and then the rest of the population which they term useless eaters, and who must be "managed." So, they receive their own form of deception, just as the public has been deceived, but in a different way.

When the American public all operates under the fundamental universal truths laid down by our founders, or at least respects them, then we can maintain a system of liberty. But we do not have that now, and we must regain it.

[Reason]

thx for posting

[InterestedParticipant]

thx for posting
I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts after you tough-it through the documentary. It certainly gave me different perspective and much to chew on.

[Reason]

I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts after you tough-it through the documentary. It certainly gave me different perspective and much to chew on.

My thoughts are that I need to watch those movies again. ;)

[InterestedParticipant]

My thoughts are that I need to watch those movies again. ;)
Please feel free to revist the thread ... I'd be curious how you view the Trilogy after seeing this documentary. It's a lot to take in.

[jm1776]

Thinking one is a God means manipulation or domination over others.... it means creating an artificial reality, a simulacrum.


Characterizing new age thought as believing one is God is a disingenuous over simplification. The idea that each of us is an invaluable and individual manifestation of a single source is no different than one God, one source. [created in Gods image] Far from promoting elitism that belief is leveling and unifying. It places supreme importance on the individual while demonstrating that all individuals are equal. Allowing each individual to be an individual is paramount to ensuring our individuality is allowed in turn.



People are free to choose to whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe on another's ability to do the same. However, what we have here is the illusion of choice via deception ....


There is no however. People are free to choose to whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe on another's ability to do the same.

[InterestedParticipant]

Characterizing new age thought as believing one is God is a disingenuous over simplification. The idea that each of us is an invaluable and individual manifestation of a single source is no different than one God, one source. [created in Gods image] Far from promoting elitism that belief is leveling and unifying. It places supreme importance on the individual while demonstrating that all individuals are equal. Allowing each individual to be an individual is paramount to ensuring our individuality is allowed in turn.
Check out America, The Sorcers New Apprentice: The Rise of New Age Shamanism (http://www.amazon.com/America-Sorcerers-New-Apprentice-Shamanism/dp/0890816514)


There is no however. People are free to choose to whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe on another's ability to do the same.
I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who does not yet see the scientifically designed system of control and manipulation. The Frankfurt Institute's work is the best place to start. I and others have mentioned them in this forum, so do a search.

[jm1776]

I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who does not yet see the scientifically designed system of control and manipulation.

Oh, okay, good luck achieving your objects on this forum.

[InterestedParticipant]

Oh, okay, good luck achieving your objects on this forum.
I realize that that vast major will never be able to cross the chasm. It's a sad reality that I have not figured out how to address.

[ramallamamama]

Thanks IP, for the OP and thanks to others for your posts. I gotta go watch the series again too...

[ramallamamama]

I like to think I reside in the frayed edges of Baudrillard's map. Is my will still my own?

[InterestedParticipant]

Oh, okay, good luck achieving your objects on this forum.
I thought about this comment a little more as it really troubled me. It seems that the poster is unwilling to pursue even the most mundane independent research by searching the forums for material already covered here. When provided with a response for material to pursue, rather than pursue it, they merely kick over the table.

It's very troubling, as the growth that is required comes from the will to do so and independent action based upon that will. To simply kick over the table or to expect others to provide the answer will be of little benefit to those confused by what is going on in the world.

[InterestedParticipant]

Thanks IP, for the OP and thanks to others for your posts. I gotta go watch the series again too...
Just realize, that they punks in the documentary are Tavistock or similarly trained elitist, so the perspective they are giving you is not humanities perspective. I cited the example of how Neo has to sacrifice himself for the system, and I'll discuss a little more later in the thread.


I like to think I reside in the frayed edges of Baudrillard's map. Is my will still my own?
Well, some of what we are wrestling with:


having been educated in their education system
living through the manufacture of events
the contrivance of history
manufactured culture
their corporations and the products they give us


Overall, I think we're just starting to understand the Simulacrum that we and our parents were raised in. It's a start.

But to think that our choices our own is to dismiss what is all around us. And to not realize that we each live in a very small box of control is to demonstrate that we've never actually tried to break outside the box, for when you do, you will experience the force of this system on you that will rock your world. You are not supposed to have any influence on this system, you are simply supposed to take orders.

[InterestedParticipant]

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.a4386905db.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?a4386905db.jpg)

Donna Bowman (ie. Ice-Eyed Lady)
Asst Prof of Religious Studies
Univ of Central Arkansas
approx 46min (part 7)

Basically what Donna is saying at this point in the documentary is that........

Neo is a failure because he chooses love for Trinity over
the saving of Zion. He doesn't even understand his
'calling'. He's just going to abandon everyone for this one
person.

She's basically trying to say that this was a failure of Neo's mission .......that the love of one person goes against the Tantric collective. Then they showed the city where the people were having their ritual......sex drugs and trance dancing. So, Neo is supposed to give up Trinity for this city of wacked-out people.

In essence, my take away is that she is trying to say Love is just some stupid human failing .....a cyst on humanity.

[ScoutsHonor]

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.a4386905db.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?a4386905db.jpg)

Donna Bowman (ie. Ice-Eyed Lady)
Asst Prof of Religious Studies
Univ of Central Arkansas
approx 46min (part 7)

Basically what Donna is saying at this point in the documentary is that........

Neo is a failure because he chooses love for Trinity over
the saving of Zion. He doesn't even understand his
'calling'. He's just going to abandon everyone for this one
person.

She's basically trying to say that this was a failure of Neo's mission .......that the love of one person goes against the Tantric collective. Then they showed the city where the people were having their ritual......sex drugs and trance dancing. So, Neo is supposed to give up Trinity for this city of wacked-out people.

In essence, my take away is that she is trying to say Love is just some stupid human failing .....a cyst on humanity.

This seems to be the exact opposite of Objectivism - Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Don't know if you're familiar with the philosophy, but her stance on this would be the same as yours: in this case, that Love is the highest value (this is a simplified statement, for all Objectivists reading. ;)) She is the most anti-collectivist writer I've ever read. IOW, she is an ardent Individualist.
:)

[InterestedParticipant]

This seems to be the exact opposite of Objectivism - Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Don't know if you're familiar with the philosophy, but her stance on this would be the same as yours: in this case, that Love is the highest value (this is a simplified statement, for all Objectivists reading. ;)) She is the most anti-collectivist writer I've ever read. IOW, she is an ardent Individualist.
:)
The young minds in this documentary are really pushing new age memes hard. I'll post again in this thread about how they and the Matrix movie is pulling stuff directly out of the Frankfurt Institute work.

[ScoutsHonor]

The young minds in this documentary are really pushing new age memes hard. I'll post again in this thread about how they and the Matrix movie is pulling stuff directly out of the Frankfurt Institute work.

Looking forward to your ideas.

[stilltrying]

Check out America, The Sorcers New Apprentice: The Rise of New Age Shamanism (http://www.amazon.com/America-Sorcerers-New-Apprentice-Shamanism/dp/0890816514)


I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who does not yet see the scientifically designed system of control and manipulation. The Frankfurt Institute's work is the best place to start. I and others have mentioned them in this forum, so do a search.

I understand fully what you are saying and presenting with these videos and fully agree with it. Most everything that normal people think, see, feel and do has definitely been designed for them and therefore they think that is the only way reality can exist or be. The alternative seems harsh but can be done. Here is a man who is doing just that. (http://men.style.com/details/features/landing?id=content_9817&mbid=yhp) To be a hermit in the mountain or wilderness does seem like a good idea at times, to me at least but what happens when you are walking or living on another mans claimed property? Just imagine getting rid of all forms of money and everyone simply produced stuff and borrowed stuff from each other. It would be a strange change of reality but yet it would be a different simulacrum. But the way things are they have trained people to think in the way that they (TPTB) have designed them and to think of anything else is somewhat of a challenge and not acceptable to conditioned minds. By designing it this way it has helped them to control the world basically.

Remembering from what I have read a couple of years ago that the average amount of free time to subsistence farmers/tribes compared to 1st world countries there is a huge amount of difference and that some of these people have a high quality of life in their books. They dont want or need the TVs, cars, sodas, computers, cell phones, refrigerators, etc... All they need is their family and village. Yes I do know that there millions or billions who are also starving in third world countries as well. But there are many different reasons for that such as violence (refugee), raping of resources by first world countries, so and so forth. It doesnt have to be this way but it is. By Design.

[InterestedParticipant]

Looking forward to your ideas.
It' pretty disgusting how they twist humanity. But this fits in with Huxley's Brave New World, where love is no longer a part of human relationships.... that's where these Tavistock trained yoyo's want to take us.

[InterestedParticipant]

I understand fully what you are saying and presenting with these videos and fully agree with it. Most everything that normal people think, see, feel and do has definitely been designed for them and therefore they think that is the only way reality can exist or be. The alternative seems harsh but can be done. Here is a man who is doing just that. (http://men.style.com/details/features/landing?id=content_9817&mbid=yhp) To be a hermit in the mountain or wilderness does seem like a good idea at times, to me at least but what happens when you are walking or living on another mans claimed property? Just imagine getting rid of all forms of money and everyone simply produced stuff and borrowed stuff from each other. It would be a strange change of reality but yet it would be a different simulacrum. But the way things are they have trained people to think in the way that they (TPTB) have designed them and to think of anything else is somewhat of a challenge and not acceptable to conditioned minds. By designing it this way it has helped them to control the world basically.

Remembering from what I have read a couple of years ago that the average amount of free time to subsistence farmers/tribes compared to 1st world countries there is a huge amount of difference and that some of these people have a high quality of life in their books. They dont want or need the TVs, cars, sodas, computers, cell phones, refrigerators, etc... All they need is their family and village. Yes I do know that there millions or billions who are also starving in third world countries as well. But there are many different reasons for that such as violence (refugee), raping of resources by first world countries, so and so forth. It doesnt have to be this way but it is. By Design.
Very interesting. I'll have a read of the article that you refer to. I think more and more people are thinking about this direction, as this planned society's sacrifices sometimes seem more than its benefits.

Given your post, you might find Jacque Ellul's book call In the Presence of the Kingdom of interest. I discuss it a little bit at this other thread

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2260576&postcount=20

Ellul provides a framework for living in Man world while simultaneously living in your God's kingdom. Given the status of today's society, it sometime seems as the only option, especially if one lives in a city where the public has become so inhuman.

[stilltrying]

ty for the link. That is what I think, The New Testament of Jesus was. Simple life, obey and worship God, do not fall for the glory and power of Rome, it is a seductive lifestyle capable and willing to consume everyone and everything it comes into contact with. America is nothing more than a modern aged Roman Empire right down to the T in my opinion. Heck you can find the Roman FASCES everywhere once you open your eyes. There is nothing new under the sun.

Anyways thanks for the link on the anarchy and the subversion. Just what I have been looking for.

[Danke]

America is nothing more than a modern aged Roman Empire right down to the T in my opinion. Heck you can find the Roman FASCES everywhere once you open your eyes. There is nothing new under the sun.
.

Yes, look at our money. Caesar's face everywhere (dead presidents). The old coin of the Republic before we became a Democracy had symbols of Liberty.

[ScoutsHonor]

It' pretty disgusting how they twist humanity. But this fits in with Huxley's Brave New World, where love is no longer a part of human relationships.... that's where these Tavistock trained yoyo's want to take us.

Yikes! If so, they can take that journey without me. :mad::rolleyes:

[moostraks]

Check out America, The Sorcers New Apprentice: The Rise of New Age Shamanism (http://www.amazon.com/America-Sorcerers-New-Apprentice-Shamanism/dp/0890816514)


I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who does not yet see the scientifically designed system of control and manipulation. The Frankfurt Institute's work is the best place to start. I and others have mentioned them in this forum, so do a search.

From a small search on this author he appears to be someone where a little knowledge is dangerous. He seems to be well versed on a little bit about numerous religions, enough where he can feel authoritative enough to claim his choices are God given but others are misled. Usually this type of person is not well versed enough on the nuances of the specific religion in question and trying to elevate his own religion of choice. People who claim to be well versed regarding the will of God will have their time to answer for themselves.

Gathering from your comments here, you seem to think you understand all new age religion as well. The diverse level of spirituality which is now lumped under new ageism should be enough to repel most from casting a wide and often disparaging net. As jm1776 tried to inform you but was so rudely,imo, dismissed for his incapacity to see the 'truth' as you see it (again MY take by your response), many are chastised by mainstream believers for being new agers, when often they may agree in theory with many of a mainstream religions beliefs but disagree with its heirarchy aspects. Easiest way to dismiss these individuals is to misleadingly ally their lack of agreement as new ageism and threaten other would be followers with eternal damnation. This allows the church, synagogue, mosque (whichever that may be) to maintain control over its followers.

Oddly enough from following your link to the comments by Ellul it appears that we may have more in common than I thought from reading what is within this immediate thread. Although, I tend towards the non-resistant side of issues(maybe as way to temper my Irishness in a self-chastising manner) and as one who's beliefs ally with Classical Arminianism and Quakers light within all. I, however, believe in the clear and present danger of believing that my path is the right and only path for everyone at the risk of challenging the work God does and manner in which he approaches the individual. Which is probably why your attitude is so offensive to me regarding your presumption towards jm1776's knowledge or beliefs.

[InterestedParticipant]

I, however, believe in the clear and present danger of believing that my path is the right and only path for everyone at the risk of challenging the work God does and manner in which he approaches the individual. Which is probably why your attitude is so offensive to me regarding your presumption towards jm1776's knowledge or beliefs.
For the record, here is what I said...which I believe is quite different than what is being represented. My focus and what is important to me is developing a system of Universal Truths that works best for humanity.... and I believe our founders have done the best job of this so far.


I think there are probably a lot of different ways to come at this answer, and overall this is an excellent topic of discussion and debate. But one might say there are infinite "truths" and that there is no one "right" truth. In our case, our founders developed a system of truths that, for probably the first time in humanity, honored the individual and created real liberties via a system of protections that has taken the elite over 200 years to unwind. Our framework of Universal Truths are wrapped up in the Declaration of Independent, Magna Carta and the writings of our founders as well as countless others. If the public would have done a better job defending this set of Universal Truths, and not let other men attempt to modify them, then we'd be in a far better situation then we are today.

But the flip side is that once men are allowed to think that they are Gods (ie new age movement), and therefore can create reality anytime they please, then I predict that the most powerful in society are the ones who will dominate reality creation and will create realities that most benefit themselves. It becomes a slippery slope, with no baseline for the weak individual who is merely attempting to pursue life, liberty & happiness.



Thinking one is a God means manipulation or domination over others.... it means creating an artificial reality, a simulacrum.

Our founders' system is based upon basic fundamental truths, or the system breaks down.

People are free to choose to whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe on another's ability to do the same. However, what we have here is the illusion of choice via deception .... through the creation of Full Spectrum Simulacrum, where industry, government, church, nonprofit institutions, culture industry, etc. collaborate to build that Simulacrum to dominate the public. That's an entirely different animal than merely having a discussion about ones ability to think.
I do, however, understand that Hunt, the author of America, The Sorcerers New Apprentice has some 'bio' issues and has been attacked. But I offered the book at a beginning, not an end point.

Perhaps the philosopher Paulo Freire would be a better recommendation, but he is more advance. See his work on "Magical Thinking."

[moostraks]

For the record, here is what I said...which I believe is quite different than what is being represented. My focus and what is important to me is developing a system of Universal Truths that works best for humanity.... and I believe our founders have done the best job of this so far.

Which is where you are going to find resistance as who are you (or any individual for that matter) to claim to be the expert on what is acceptable as universal truth as applies to spiritual matters? I was not trying to misconstrue anything you stated. You took a defined stance regarding new ageism and got snarky with another individual for not willing to embrace your views or consider them. I think it was unjust of you to claim to know all who might be lumped within the range of spiritual beliefs known as new age as it has generally become the disparaging title of choice for all who claim a mainstream religion to malign others who are unattached (solitary believers of whatever stream of thought) or more open to the idea of the "light within" all spiritual paths (to borrow from the Friends theology).


I do, however, understand that Hunt, the author of America, The Sorcerers New Apprentice has some 'bio' issues and has been attacked. But I offered the book at a beginning, not an end point.

Perhaps the philosopher Paulo Freire would be a better recommendation, but he is more advance. See his work on "Magical Thinking."

I wasn't reading personnal attacks on the author but looking at the matter from the context of the fact that those who were maligned took offense to their religion being misconstrued. which means he wasn't getting his facts straight in order to elevate his own stance. Similar to how some here could take offense to your particular beliefs regarding new age spirituality being an absolute belief system you can vilify.

Will look into the other recommendation. I apologize if this seems snippy but you come on way too authoritarian in your beliefs. Until you walk a mile in another person's moccasins you have no right to make sweeping commentaries on their beliefs.

[moostraks]

Perhaps the philosopher Paulo Freire would be a better recommendation, but he is more advance. See his work on "Magical Thinking."

:) A Marxist? Interesting follow up choice...

[InterestedParticipant]

:) A Marxist? Interesting follow up choice...
Am I not to read Marx, Hegel, Plato, Adorno, Bernays, Huxley.... etc? Freire has done some excellent thought development in this area, and I think people would be missing-out if they do not at least include him in their inventory of analysis.

[InterestedParticipant]

Which is where you are going to find resistance as who are you (or any individual for that matter) to claim to be the expert on what is acceptable as universal truth as applies to spiritual matters? I was not trying to misconstrue anything you stated. You took a defined stance regarding new ageism and got snarky with another individual for not willing to embrace your views or consider them. I think it was unjust of you to claim to know all who might be lumped within the range of spiritual beliefs known as new age as it has generally become the disparaging title of choice for all who claim a mainstream religion to malign others who are unattached (solitary believers of whatever stream of thought) or more open to the idea of the "light within" all spiritual paths (to borrow from the Friends theology).

I wasn't reading personnal attacks on the author but looking at the matter from the context of the fact that those who were maligned took offense to their religion being misconstrued. which means he wasn't getting his facts straight in order to elevate his own stance. Similar to how some here could take offense to your particular beliefs regarding new age spirituality being an absolute belief system you can vilify.

Will look into the other recommendation. I apologize if this seems snippy but you come on way too authoritarian in your beliefs. Until you walk a mile in another person's moccasins you have no right to make sweeping commentaries on their beliefs.
I recommended, to the poster that you speak of, some material that they could search out and review on their own. I don't know how anyone interprets this suggestion as snarky or dismissive of an entire belief system.

In any event, we're way off topic here, as this thread was intended as a place to discuss the documentary posted in the OP and how that relates to the Matrix movie including the philosophies presented in the trilogy. These recent post are migrating toward a much broader spectrum of discussion, which is outside the scope of this thread. If you'd like to start a thread on New Age or similar topic, please feel free to do so and I will post in that thread with my insights and opinion.

[moostraks]

I recommended, to the poster that you speak of, some material that they could search out and review on their own. I don't know how anyone interprets this suggestion as snarky or dismissive of an entire belief system.

In any event, we're way off topic here, as this thread was intended as a place to discuss the documentary posted in the OP and how that relates to the Matrix movie including the philosophies presented in the trilogy. These recent post are migrating toward a much broader spectrum of discussion, which is outside the scope of this thread. If you'd like to start a thread on New Age or similar topic, please feel free to do so and I will post in that thread with my insights and opinion.

I am well within the confines of what was established by you within the thread. Your words:

But the flip side is that once men are allowed to think that they are Gods (ie new age movement), and therefore can create reality anytime they please, then I predict that the most powerful in society are the ones who will dominate reality creation and will create realities that most benefit themselves. It becomes a slippery slope, with no baseline for the weak individual who is merely attempting to pursue life, liberty & happiness.

Comment?
(emphasis mine)

Someone took the time to state you were misconstruing new age religion by over simplification.

Your words:

I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who does not yet see the scientifically designed system of control and manipulation


I realize that that vast major will never be able to cross the chasm. It's a sad reality that I have not figured out how to address.


It seems that the poster is unwilling to pursue even the most mundane independent research by searching the forums for material already covered here. When provided with a response for material to pursue, rather than pursue it, they merely kick over the table.

Not snarky? I guess folks who esteem their own views so highly can't stoop to see the pedestal upon which they have elevated themselves.

You have your inital premise wrong and are vilifying a belief system, your words and choice not my assumption, and then dismiss anyone who points out errors with the pomposity of the very elites you propose are misguiding people. If you want to be accurate stick to specifics but your generalizations are off the mark. If you want to have a monologue then don't ask for comments. Make a blog.

[InterestedParticipant]

You have your inital premise wrong and are vilifying a belief system, your words and choice not my assumption, and then dismiss anyone who points out errors with the pomposity of the very elites you propose are misguiding people. If you want to be accurate stick to specifics but your generalizations are off the mark. If you want to have a monologue then don't ask for comments. Make a blog.
I am requesting again that you simply begin your own thread if you want to have a discussion on New Age religion and its merits. I would be interested to learn how you think New Age benefits humanity and individuals, and how that fits within the concepts of Liberty.

I am going to continue my comments regarding the documentary posted in the OP. If you are going to continue to try to publish material that is more focused on me, my tone and fragments of my broader statement, then I'll invoke the moderators, using the recently published guidelines which prevent this sort of hijacking of threads.

Again, am encouraging you to promote your vision of New Age and how you think that helps society. I am more than curious to understand how you think this construct works. But please just do it in your own thread.

[moostraks]

Am I not to read Marx, Hegel, Plato, Adorno, Bernays, Huxley.... etc? Freire has done some excellent thought development in this area, and I think people would be missing-out if they do not at least include him in their inventory of analysis.

A broken clock may be right twice a day but I don't use it for framework. I took the time to look into that which you were referencing with regards to Paulo Freire. It wasn't that enlightening. It was basic sociology. Not too impressed and think you can find a better reference especially since Freire's end goal was Marxist.

Furthermore, why would you reference someone for purposes of who is apparently a lynchpin in the very framework you propose to be battling?

"Freire deeply influences North American classroom educators. "Rethinking Schools", a monthly newspaper produced by rank and file teachers with a circulation of more than 10,000, reaching directly into the hands of classroom teachers, uses Freire's theories as a matter of routine. Bob Peterson, using Freire's contribution, writes, 'There are five characteristics that I think are essential to teaching critical/social justice: A curriculum grounded in the lives of our students, dialogue, a questioning problem/posing approach, an emphasis on critiquing bias and attitudes, and the teaching of activism for social justice.'"

from:The Promethean Literacy:
Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of
Reading, Praxis and Liberation


Richard Gibson
1994
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/freirall.htm

If you fail to see that education in government indoctrination camps are part of the problem, then there are bigger issues to be taken with your proposals. You appear to be proposing battling a fire with gasoline.

I am perplexed at your tactics. You take umbrage with a movie for its teachings when what most extracted from it was to break free from the reality that has been imposed upon you. Yet you propose to fight the fascism with the pedagogy of one who is utilized to indoctrinate us without even acknowledging it should be used as a tool for discernment of what's wrong with the current culture we have embraced. Please do enlighten us some more as to where we fell off the turnip truck, oh wise one...

[InterestedParticipant]

I have created The New Age Discussion thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206957). Please take this discussion to that thread. I am alerting the moderators.

For those interested in the OP of this thread, and who are continuing to follow along, irregardless of what you are witnessing here, there is an important lesson to be learned. What you are watching is the use of Theodor Adorno's technique of Negative Dialectics, where every aspect of a person and their discussion is attacked. The object is not open and fair dialog and discussion, but to breakdown the other party, and to destroy every aspect of their position.

These are the tactics being employed against family, love, faith, our traditional religious institutions, home schooling... you name it. The fact that it is coming from someone who obviously is a proponent of New Age thinking should not be lost on observers.

All of humanity's value systems are under attack right now as we are moved from 20th Century society to Brave New World society.

[ScoutsHonor]

A broken clock may be right twice a day but I don't use it for framework. I took the time to look into that which you were referencing with regards to Paulo Freire. It wasn't that enlightening. It was basic sociology. Not too impressed and think you can find a better reference especially since Freire's end goal was Marxist.

Furthermore, why would you reference someone for purposes of who is........

Er, why so obsctructionist? Why not just start a "New Age" thread, so the discussion can continue instead of deteriorating into annoying back-and-forth arguments? :rolleyes:

[moostraks]

Er, why so obsctructionist? Why not just start a "New Age" thread, so the discussion can continue instead of deteriorating into annoying back-and-forth arguments? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: He made the thread new age bashing and then gets pissy because people contest his argument. He asked for comments and then whines because someone disagrees with him. His premise is flawed but no one wants to rationalize this because the moral majority find it okay to bash new agers.

BTW since you seem to be supporting his stance did you take the time to respond regarding Freire? Why so obstructionist???

You might want to quote the argument you refer to which clearly shows he made the claim and I was refuting his stance (and wasn't the only one,fwiw...)

[moostraks]

I have created The New Age Discussion thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206957). Please take this discussion to that thread. I am alerting the moderators.

For those interested in the OP of this thread, and who are continuing to follow along, irregardless of what you are witnessing here, there is an important lesson to be learned. What you are watching is the use of Theodor Adorno's technique of Negative Dialectics, where every aspect of a person and their discussion is attacked. The object is not open and fair dialog and discussion, but to breakdown the other party, and to destroy every aspect of their position.

These are the tactics being employed against family, love, faith, our traditional religious institutions, home schooling... you name it. The fact that it is coming from someone who obviously is a proponent of New Age thinking should not be lost on observers.

All of humanity's value systems are under attack right now as we are moved from 20th Century society to Brave New World society.

:rolleyes: And so you fight fire with gasoline??? I see you ignored my questions on your choice of Freir since the Matrix is so bad...

You are no different than those you claim to oppose in your authoritarian, nanny state thread creating. You reported me for arguing a stance you took? No wonder jm1776 gave up. You are interested in strong arming people into your position. Dissenters will be discarded as ignorant and unwilling to see your enlightenment or reported for failing to concede...

[ScoutsHonor]

:rolleyes: He made the thread new age bashing and then gets pissy because people contest his argument. He asked for comments and then whines because someone disagrees with him. His premise is flawed but no one wants to rationalize this because the moral majority find it okay to bash new agers.

BTW since you seem to be supporting his stance did you take the time to respond regarding Freire? Why so obstructionist???

You might want to quote the argument you refer to which clearly shows he made the claim and I was refuting his stance (and wasn't the only one,fwiw...)

The discussion is moot now since the New Age thread has been started.
I'm looking forward to discussing this on that thread...

"His premise is flawed but no one wants to rationalize this because the moral majority find it okay to bash new agers."

Hey, I'm an Objectivist. I never before heard that that was considered
"New Age" Lol! But I'd love to discuss it...;)

[moostraks]

The discussion is moot now since the New Age thread has been started.
I'm looking forward to discussing this on that thread...

"His premise is flawed but no one wants to rationalize this because the moral majority find it okay to bash new agers."

Hey, I'm an Objectivist. I never before heard that that was considered
"New Age" Lol! But I'd love to discuss it...;)

Did I refer to you as new age?:confused:

I think that a great many people can be discarded by taking a broad stroke to a large mass of people who have been lumped in the category new age. It is no different than claiming all liberals are socialist and all republicans are fascist and then anyone who espouses an opinion that even resembles a similar view held by a particular party gets demonized. Many find themselves unwittingly there even though the term does not resemble the reality. It is people who change the parameters of the term that cause the problem.

I think this is pertinent to the discussion at hand as op stated the framework based upon this statement (of new ageism) and then furthered it with his recommendations of further reading. I think taking it to another thread just serves to sweep under the carpet the parameter change occuring here regarding one branch of spirituality (and its followers) being demonized for the unrelated action of others.

I can't see dumping the matrix movies when the alternative being posited is being based in part on one who is idealized by the opposition. It seems bizarre to me and I can't fathom the rationale. After having read through two questionable sources already posted I question the worth of the aforementioned video. Maybe I need to take the time to watch the documentary to see if it has any worth but I haven't had the time to slog through it. Reading is easier as I am more a reader than a watcher...:)

[InterestedParticipant]

Maybe I need to take the time to watch the documentary to see if it has any worth but I haven't had the time to slog through it.
I've repeatedly stated in this thread that this thread was created to discuss the documentary. You've ignored my requests to engage in your off-topic conversation in another more appropriate thread, even though I went out of my way to start that thread and to refer you to it. Now, after all this, you admit that you have not even watched the documentary. This is ludicrous.

[moostraks]

I've repeatedly stated in this thread that this thread was created to discuss the documentary. You've ignored my requests to engage in your off-topic conversation in another more appropriate thread, even though I went out of my way to start that thread and to refer you to it. Now, after all this, you admit that you have not even watched the documentary. This is ludicrous.

No you added follow up resources which I have taken the time to look through and comment on, but you are still ignoring my queries as to choices. If you didn't want those discussed then you should not have included them. I didn't need to slog through the video to see you were in error when you made the sweeping generalization when you stated:


But the flip side is that once men are allowed to think that they are Gods (ie new age movement), and therefore can create reality anytime they please, then I predict that the most powerful in society are the ones who will dominate reality creation and will create realities that most benefit themselves. It becomes a slippery slope, with no baseline for the weak individual who is merely attempting to pursue life, liberty & happiness.

Comment?

Upon which you were continuing to expand with the links to


America, The Sorcers New Apprentice: The Rise of New Age Shamanism

and
the philosopher Paulo Freire would be a better recommendation, but he is more advance. See his work on "Magical Thinking

To which I made very on topic references and discussion. You have continually ignored how one who can malign the matrix movies can rationalize using one idealized by Marxist educators, much less without prefacing context.

Kraig had already described the context of the videos, before I even saw this thread. I came in to back up what jm1776 stated regarding your disingenuous posturing regarding new age beliefs. I have had the capacity of late to read and skim articles, but slogging through a video when your other links are bogus leaves a good bit to be desired. I have more interest in hearing your rationalizations on your follow up with Freire....

Are you going to stay on topic or are you going to spend your time 'kicking over the table'???:)

[moostraks]

Okay, because IP you were so nice to point out I lack depth of reasoning due to my failure to watch your videos, I have watched #1 and have learned that people see in the matrix what philosophy they want to see. No surprise, since I have heard opposing spiritual backgrounds all claim some truth told within its writings...

Continuing to watch...

[moostraks]

The second video the matrix as gnosticism.

The third video is the matrix as Socratic philosophy, Descartes theory, Berkeley's theory, Kant's ideas,and Nietzsche.

Wondering if there is a point or if this is an exercise in making the matrix movies fit the philosophy of choice....

[moostraks]

Fourth matrix through the ideas of Baudrillard,Nozick, and more deuling symbolism as viewed through the eyes of modern pontificators.

Fifth tantra,upanishads, Laplace,and Hume.

Sixth continues with Schopenhauer, some slamming of western religion (I think unfounded as the individual seems unaware of those 'enlightened' ones in western religion as well),ahh...the gnostic calls the scene for Neo going back for Trinity a failing, two others state his choice as love as the ultimate goal or achievement, and the importance of intuition and insight.

As I have not seen the last Matrix movie I refuse to allow a documentary to play spoiler. Will watch the balance later. I guess I will quit procrasting and watch it.


Interestingly they spend a small amount of time making reference to each Matrix movie's correlation to the Bible and story line comparisons to the biblical storyline of Jesus. Odd mixture while claiming to correlate to each philosopher. The sporatic film clips insertion is unnerving as they are generally too brief to retain in context to what they say is their chosen philosophy being portrayed...

[ScoutsHonor]

I think that a great many people can be discarded by taking a broad stroke to a large mass of people who have been lumped in the category new age. It is no different than claiming all liberals are socialist and all republicans are fascist and then anyone who espouses an opinion that even resembles a similar view held by a particular party gets demonized. Many find themselves unwittingly there even though the term does not resemble the reality. It is people who change the parameters of the term that cause the problem.

I think this is pertinent to the discussion at hand as op stated the framework based upon this statement (of new ageism) and then furthered it with his recommendations of further reading. I think taking it to another thread just serves to sweep under the carpet the parameter change occuring here regarding one branch of spirituality (and its followers) being demonized for the unrelated action of others."

I think this is true, and leads to very frustrating conversations, because the other party feels completely misperceived (and in truth they ARE being misperceived.) So you're right, and it's really important, imo, that someone gets the chance to explain their viewpoint-- and looking back on it JM probably wasn't given much opportunity to do that.

"I can't see dumping the matrix movies when the alternative being posited is being based in part on one who is idealized by the opposition. It seems bizarre to me and I can't fathom the rationale."

Yes, it's hard to understand why IP is using certain of his sources; I'm curious about how this will work to bolster his position. I'll have to wait and see this
interesting form of argumentation at work, when he responds to you. ;)

"Maybe I need to take the time to watch the documentary to see if it has any worth but I haven't had the time to slog through it. Reading is easier as I am more a reader than a watcher...:)"

Same with me. I am usually NOT up for watching videos because I'd much rather get my information from the written word. My library is probably 1/5th of my total worldly possessions.(g) So I understand, and sympathize. :)

I think it's great that you're going to watch the movies (better you than me--(*ducking*)...and am looking forward to hearing what you think about the
message of the Matrix, after that. And, I sure hope this message belongs here, where I'm posting it....:confused::)

[ScoutsHonor]

OK, IP.

My curiousity finally has gotten the best of me, and I'm going to watch ALL those videos.

DARN!
:rolleyes:

[InterestedParticipant]

Sixth continues with Schopenhauer, some slamming of western religion (I think unfounded as the individual seems unaware of those 'enlightened' ones in western religion as well),ahh...the gnostic calls the scene for Neo going back for Trinity a failing, two others state his choice as love as the ultimate goal or achievement, and the importance of intuition and insight.
Here's my notes regarding that part of the documentary, from earlier in this thread..


http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.a4386905db.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?a4386905db.jpg)

Donna Bowman (ie. Ice-Eyed Lady)
Asst Prof of Religious Studies
Univ of Central Arkansas
approx 46min (part 7)

Basically what Donna is saying at this point in the documentary is that........

Neo is a failure because he chooses love for Trinity over
the saving of Zion. He doesn't even understand his
'calling'. He's just going to abandon everyone for this one
person.

She's basically trying to say that this was a failure of Neo's mission .......that the love of one person goes against the Tantric collective. Then they showed the city where the people were having their ritual......sex drugs and trance dancing. So, Neo is supposed to give up Trinity for this city of wacked-out people.

In essence, my take away is that she is trying to say Love is just some stupid human failing .....a cyst on humanity.

[moostraks]

Here's my notes regarding that part of the documentary, from earlier in this thread..

Which is followed by the gal which states "love is held up as the ultimate reality. It is what motivates us, drives and orients us" then goes on to discuss (briefly) how so many of the world's religions embrace this aspect in 'abstract' and 'concretize' this in divine love and the "highest glimpse being divinity". Followed by the gentleman who goes on to discuss tantra, nirvana and samsara, and simplifies the concept to "love can conquer all".

Then we are back to them discussing rational thinking can't solve the problems created in the matrix but there must be something else, that being intuition and insight. THat Neo is the beginning and the end, (alpha and omega?)Who "reboots the entire system in one giant,cosmic reincarnation." (resurrection story?)(this based upon conjecture regarding Tolkein's background and the authors' exposure)

Now what is interesting is this pontificating reflects the views of each person seen through the eyes of the experiences of the one's pontificating. Spirituality discussed like three blind men and the elephant with each handling a different portion. You are reading into this issue, imo, that which you are latching onto out of these particular philosphers. I base this on the fact that you did not include the subsequent two explanations of Neo's choice in this clip.

Now I lay more weight on what appears to be the biography of the authors' backgrounds in which they are said to have been brought up on a diet of dungeons and dragons, comic books, and JRR Tolkien. They went to a performing arts/science magnet school working behind the scenes. From my experience this gives me a bit of an idea of the formative factors that were probably integral to their thinking. It explains also why geeks feel "it is the ultimate geek movie" per the woman in section 2. I was a drama geek (who was always in 'love' with guys just these these 2!)and know quite well the personality it attracted and these guys aren't much older than I am. This alone explains some of the nuances of outsider/insiderness of the movies, for me. It would be more insightful,imo, to get an author's take on the matter than what others take away from something.

Anywho, I am thinking you are making a mountain out of a molehill. What I witnessed from the extent of these videos is quite possibly these guys were capable of authoring something that contained enough universal truths that everyone could feel their views would apply within the context of the movie. That is how universal truth works.

It is how so many different political backgrounds came to Dr.Paul. He had the capacity of tapping certain universal truths that we could all hear and feel welcomed to associate. Now since some neo-nazi's also feel welcome and most would disagree with neo-nazi philosophy does that mean the Dr.'s message was flawed?? No....

The same applies to philosophy. When approaching other views of spirituality with an open mind one is capable of seeing the harmony rather than seeking conflict to display where others are wrong and that is where you will find the universal truth,imo.

For me, knowing the context of the authors' L.O.T.R. interests I can see some of this now in hindsight. It also gives some credence to the non-overt, more abstract christian analogies that line up with L.O.T.R., but that is a whole 'nother can of worms that christians incessantly debate.

[moostraks]

I think this is true, and leads to very frustrating conversations, because the other party feels completely misperceived (and in truth they ARE being misperceived.) So you're right, and it's really important, imo, that someone gets the chance to explain their viewpoint-- and looking back on it JM probably wasn't given much opportunity to do that.

"I can't see dumping the matrix movies when the alternative being posited is being based in part on one who is idealized by the opposition. It seems bizarre to me and I can't fathom the rationale."

Yes, it's hard to understand why IP is using certain of his sources; I'm curious about how this will work to bolster his position. I'll have to wait and see this
interesting form of argumentation at work, when he responds to you. ;)

"Maybe I need to take the time to watch the documentary to see if it has any worth but I haven't had the time to slog through it. Reading is easier as I am more a reader than a watcher...:)"

Same with me. I am usually NOT up for watching videos because I'd much rather get my information from the written word. My library is probably 1/5th of my total worldly possessions.(g) So I understand, and sympathize. :)

I think it's great that you're going to watch the movies (better you than me--(*ducking*)...and am looking forward to hearing what you think about the
message of the Matrix, after that. And, I sure hope this message belongs here, where I'm posting it....:confused::)

I guess you can see I have made it through most of the videos. I can't watch the last 2 as they will play spoiler (I believe). I see you have changed your mind and will watch? I think they are easier to listen to than to watch, fwiw. Too many short clips for my taste interspersed. But to each his own.:)

I think the documentary is another case of taking away what you bring to the table. For some it will validate their stance, and for others it will seem like a smorgasbord of philosophy and be too much for their palate. I took out that it was interesting so many could find their own spiritual truths validated. It seemed like a well authored plot where only extremists in view points feel isolated by not having a purist rendention of their beliefs. In my opinion that means it makes for tons of revenue at the box office and a legion of followers to the storyline. Appealing to the geek, outsider, and want-to-be revolutionary in all of humanity...

[newbitech]

very thought provoking trilogy. The documentary is very broad in scope with the analysis. I have watched the movies over and over and have been thrilled every time. I would say that the movies definitely was one of the first parts of my awakening which has eventually led me here.

[InterestedParticipant]

Which is followed by the gal which states "love is held up as the ultimate reality. It is what motivates us, drives and orients us" then goes on to discuss (briefly) how so many of the world's religions embrace this aspect in 'abstract' and 'concretize' this in divine love and the "highest glimpse being divinity". Followed by the gentleman who goes on to discuss tantra, nirvana and samsara, and simplifies the concept to "love can conquer all".

Then we are back to them discussing rational thinking can't solve the problems created in the matrix but there must be something else, that being intuition and insight. THat Neo is the beginning and the end, (alpha and omega?)Who "reboots the entire system in one giant,cosmic reincarnation." (resurrection story?)(this based upon conjecture regarding Tolkein's background and the authors' exposure).
Neo sacrifices himself to the system in order to incorporate his failings (ie. Love, etc.) to the system, so that the system can be reprogrammed and improved with these "attributes,"... the system is then rebooted.

Neo is not a genuine antithesis to the system, but an expected anomaly who is reincorporated into the system in order to more perfect the Simulacrum.

[moostraks]

Neo sacrifices himself to the system in order to incorporate his failings (ie. Love, etc.) to the system, so that the system can be reprogrammed and improved with these "attributes,"... the system is then rebooted.

Neo is not a genuine antithesis to the system, but an expected anomaly who is reincorporated into the system in order to more perfect the Simulacrum.

How does this differ from the commandments of Jesus as portrayed in christian theology? His sacrifice is a testament of love as well as a testament to our failure to understand and willingness to stoop to brutality for perceived ills. What it is corrupted to later by man, does not change the message of the two commandments or the universal truth regarding the neccesity of all things to be tempered with love or that in life sacrifices are required for achievement of any worthy goal.

Through Jesus legalism was to be rebooted with the two commandments of Love.

"34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

I might be better suited to argue this scenario with you if I were more aware of the constructs of the spiritual path you embrace. I am merely arguing it from a christian standpoint as it is the one with which I am most aquainted. However, as previously stated many of the streams of religion have stories similar in tone and educational value. This then would be imo, considered a universal truth.

[InterestedParticipant]

How does this differ from the commandments of Jesus as portrayed in christian theology? His sacrifice is a testament of love as well as a testament to our failure to understand and willingness to stoop to brutality for perceived ills. What it is corrupted to later by man, does not change the message of the two commandments or the universal truth regarding the neccesity of all things to be tempered with love or that in life sacrifices are required for achievement of any worthy goal.

Through Jesus legalism was to be rebooted with the two commandments of Love.

"34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

[B]I might be better suited to argue this scenario with you if I were more aware of the constructs of the spiritual path you embrace. I am merely arguing it from a christian standpoint as it is the one with which I am most aquainted. However, as previously stated many of the streams of religion have stories similar in tone and educational value. This then would be imo, considered a universal truth.
Because Jesus wasn't pimping Full Spectrum Simulacrum (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206336) for the purposes
of dominance and control of the many by the few.

Jesus told us to stand-up to oppression....
where do these Tavistock weenies say anything about that?
Jesus' presence in Jerusalem became highly disruptive.
That last Passover, he basically had half the public on strike
against the Romans and their flunkie Herod.

Further, Love (ie The Ghost in the Machine) is nothing more than another
system variable to them... listen to that part of the documentary again.

P.S. I realize you are attempting to figure out which vector set I am in, so you can
spin your responses accordingly. Good luck with that one. I'll address that part of
the Matrix next, getting its foundations from the Franklin School (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206862).

[moostraks]

Because Jesus wasn't pimping Full Spectrum Simulacrum (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206336) for the purposes
of dominance and control of the many by the few.

Jesus told us to stand-up to oppression....
where do these Tavistock weenies say anything about that?
Jesus' presence in Jerusalem became highly disruptive.
That last Passover, he basically had half the public on strike
against the Romans and their flunkie Herod.

Further, Love (ie The Ghost in the Machine) is nothing more than another
system variable to them... listen to that part of the documentary again.

P.S. I realize you are attempting to figure out which vector set I am in, so you can
spin your responses accordingly. Good luck with that one. I'll address that part of
the Matrix next, getting its foundations from the Franklin School (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=206862).

:rolleyes: I asked you merely to understand where you are coming from so we may speak using similar framework, a common language. Large print is unnecessary.

I listened to that part of the documentary extensively, re-read my notes. Where are you coming up with love is the system variable response? I have not gone into portion 7, and won't until I see the last movie. Section 6 says nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the documentary contradicts the conclusion of the the woman you quoted and placed it within the context to which I stated aligns with the Jesus story.

Jesus' presence was disruptive because He was presenting a completing foreign manner of approaching the issues of the time and beating tptb of the time at their own game without raising a hand in violence against another. Are you denying that He made the statement regarding the two greatest commandments? So every decision, every action and reaction should be done with love at its core.

An excellent work that I read several years ago was John Howard Yoders book The Politics of Jesus. In this he comments that " In His death the Powers-in this case the most worthy, weighty representatives of Jewish religion and Roman politics-acted in collusion. Like everyone, he too was subject (but in this case quite willingly) to these powers. He accepted His own status of submission. But morally He broke their rules by refusing to support them in their self-glorification and that is why they killed Him. Preaching and incorporating a greater righteousness than that of the Pharisees, and a vision of an order of social human relations more universal than Pax Romana, he permitted the Jews to profane a holy day (refuting their own moral pretension) and permitted the Romans to deny their vaunted respect for their law as they proceeded illegally against Him. This they did in order to avoid the threat to their dominion represented by the very fact that He existed in their midst so morally independant of their pretensions."

Col 2:14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

As such He reframed how we are to reconcile ourselves within our communities and spiritually...

As for your anger towards what the 'tavistock weenies' in your view are proposing, you seem to be latching on to one sentiment proposed by one individual. Now mind you I am not aware of how this concludes but I know that there have been contradictory statements (most specifically regarding Neo's choice with Trinity that you seem hung up on) made by the various respondents in the documentary. Thus it seems like what I remarked before, people are reading into the storyline what they want to read.

Why are you hell bent on demoralizing people on this trilogy? Why do you ignore the similarities between the background of the authors and their choice of storyline? To me it makes more sense than you are proposing.

Btw, I am still waiting for a response on why you chose the Marxist Freire's philosophy as a means to rationalize the simulacrum you propose exists. As one who formed the pedagogy embraced by the current educators has does this illuminate one to the false paradigm we find ourselves embracing?

[ScoutsHonor]

I guess you can see I have made it through most of the videos. I can't watch the last 2 as they will play spoiler (I believe). I see you have changed your mind and will watch? I think they are easier to listen to than to watch, fwiw. Too many short clips for my taste interspersed. But to each his own.:)

I think the documentary is another case of taking away what you bring to the table. For some it will validate their stance, and for others it will seem like a smorgasbord of philosophy and be too much for their palate. I took out that it was interesting so many could find their own spiritual truths validated. It seemed like a well authored plot where only extremists in view points feel isolated by not having a purist rendention of their beliefs. In my opinion that means it makes for tons of revenue at the box office and a legion of followers to the storyline. Appealing to the geek, outsider, and want-to-be revolutionary in all of humanity...

Haven't had time to watch it yet, but will post my thoughts after I do. I've only seen the first one & would prefer to see the others before trying to assess the entire effort.

Look forward to talkig to you after that's accomplished.

Regards.