The Matrix Fans 2007 forums

[iLuvU2]

If one believes that the light, the Source, God, the box, the reflections, and him are all separate things, then he is like Neo for most of the Trilogy before the satori moment.

Then why is the expression "the Source" in the story?

[Feral_Boy]

If I had to superimpose my Christian theology onto the Matrix (which I believe is impossible in total, but somewhat possible in part), I would say that the Source is the spirit of God.

As a side note, I personally do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity--with one God in three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). I believe in one God who is the Father, whose spirit (referred to as the "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament) is not an actual being with his own will, but is simply the spirit of God in the same way that we all have our own spirits. My spirit does not have its own will and consciousness apart from my own mind. It is no more conscious than my arm or leg. I also believe that Yeshua is the Son who came forth out of the Father and through whom all things were created--but that he himself has not always been. He is the image of his Father and the mediator between God and man.

So in the same way that the Source is not an actual being, that would be similar in my own belief to the spirit of God. And the closest thing to the Father in the Matrix mythology would not be Deus Ex Machina, but would rather be the Wachowski Brothers--the true overseers of the story. They are outside the world--as the Father is--and no character in the Matrix story has ever seen the Wachowski Brothers--just as no man has ever seen the Father.

So where does that leave Deus Ex Machina, the Architect and the Oracle in comparison with my take on Christianity? Well, certain aspects of them could be mapped onto the Father, but only in a limited way. As it has already been thoroughly proven time and again, the Matrix mythology is not a Christian viewpoint (nor do I believe was it ever intended to be), but takes certain aspects of it in an attempt to be as inclusive (i.e. "integral") as possible.

[CaptPostMod]

If one believes that the light, the Source, God, the box, the reflections, and him are all separate things, then he is like Neo for most of the Trilogy before the satori moment.

Then why is the expression "the Source" in the story?

Why wouldn't it be?

[iLuvU2]

the Matrix mythology is not a Christian viewpoint (nor do I believe was it ever intended to be), but takes certain aspects of it in an attempt to be as inclusive (i.e. "integral") as possible.

Integral doesn't mean inclusive, though. It means complete.

Why wouldn't it be?

1. Those other names you listed aren't used for it.
2. And not everyone calls it that.

[CaptPostMod]

1. Those other names you listed aren't used for it.

What names aren't used for what? "A rose by any other name ..."

2. And not everyone calls it that.

Who is everyone? What's that or it?

[iLuvU2]

"It" is never called "God", "light", or "box", or anything else in the story. It is called "the Source". And you have yet to say why you think this is so, assuming you've given it any thought at all. Judging by your responses thus far, maybe not. If this is the case, no need to respond.

****everyone other than captpostmod stop here or run the risk of being totally confused****

A rose by any other name...

I know the quote. My focal point is...what other names are there and who calls it that. Then we can get into why give it one name if, in fact, it has many.

What's that or it?

'The Source"

Who is everyone?

Are you for real

[CaptPostMod]

"It" is never called "God", "light", or "box", or anything else in the story. It is called "the Source".

What is it?

To ask that another way, you say that there is a story in which an "it" is called a thingy-majig and not a whatcha-macallit. What is your antecedent for the pronoun "it" here?

... why give it one name if, in fact, it has many.

That is a universal dilema, apparently.

What's that or it?

'The Source"

What's the Source?

Who is everyone?

Are you for real

Good response. My response to it: anattman.

[CaptPostMod]

... but would rather be the Wachowski Brothers--the true overseers of the story. They are outside the world--as the Father is--and no character in the Matrix story has ever seen the Wachowski Brothers--just as no man has ever seen the Father.

I like this a lot! And of course, while no one in the Matrix-verse has ever seen the Wachowskis, they see only the Wachowskis. Because what in the Matrix-verse is other than a dream version of its creator?

[Feral_Boy]

... but would rather be the Wachowski Brothers--the true overseers of the story. They are outside the world--as the Father is--and no character in the Matrix story has ever seen the Wachowski Brothers--just as no man has ever seen the Father.

I like this a lot! And of course, while no one in the Matrix-verse has ever seen the Wachowskis, they see only the Wachowskis. Because what in the Matrix-verse is other than a dream version of its creator?

Exactly! For me, the Father's perception is the only one that counts. All that matters is becoming like His Son, who is the image of God. And because both the Father and the Son live in me through the spirit, they are transforming me every day. Yeshua is both the author AND the completer of my faith. And this transformation takes place as I read His word, which causes my mind to be less in alignment with my flesh and more in alignment with my spirit. One day, the final transformation will occur, as my body will become immortal--changing from a physical body of death to a spiritual body of life.

[iLuvU2]

What is it?

To ask that another way, you say that there is a story in which an "it" is called a thingy-majig and not a whatcha-macallit. What is your antecedent for the pronoun "it" here?

That is unnecessarily evasive. Let's make it simpler by eliminating the last sentence which made it into a question of a perspective outside of the story. Start over with the fact that there is a story in which an "it" is called a thingy-majig and not a whatchmacallit and not even an "it", focus on why that is so, and go ahead from there.

That is a universal dilema, apparently.

The root of the word dilemma is "di-" meaning 2. So you should see the problem with the above sentence, right?

Plus, it's apparently a problem that is resolved in the story, since a term was used, yes?

What's the Source?

(How) does the story answer this question?
Even within the stoy, it depends on who you ask.
I refer back to what I said about the word, "integral".

I like this a lot! And of course, while no one in the Matrix-verse has ever seen the Wachowskis, they see only the Wachowskis. Because what in the Matrix-verse is other than a dream version of its creator?

Are you saying that the Wachowskis':
a. wrote themselves in the story, per se?
b. intended that they be "the Source" in the story?
LOL

[CaptPostMod]

Start over with the fact that there is a story in which an "it"...

Okay, what is that "it"?

That is a universal dilema, apparently.

The root of the word dilemma is "di-" meaning 2. So you should see the problem with the above sentence, right?

Nope. For example of my statement, though, please see the Middle Eastern Conflicts.

Plus, it's apparently a problem that is resolved in the story, since a term was used, yes?

The problem referenced is solved in the story by Neo when he achieves Satori and the third path.

What's the Source?

(How) does the story answer this question?

How?

Are you saying that the Wachowskis':
a. wrote themselves in the story, per se?

I'm saying that any given character is an aspect of its creator.

b. intended that they be "the Source" in the story?

They are certainly the source of the story. The "it" in the story, representing the Source, is clearly not the Wachowskis from the characters' points of view.

[iLuvU2]

Okay, what is that "it"?

The important point is what is "it" called and who calls "it" that?

The problem referenced is solved in the story by Neo when he achieves Satori and the third path.

It is "solved" way before that. Try when the story was being written.

The root of the word dilemma is "di-" meaning 2. So you should see the problem with the above sentence, right?

Nope. For example of my statement, though, please see the Middle Eastern Conflicts.

Uh...What?

They are certainly the source of the story. The "it" in the story, representing the Source, is clearly not the Wachowskis from the characters' points of view.

Hear that, Feral?
Now. First of all, the "it" doesn't represent "the Source". The reverse is the case. And since they are the source of the story and its characters, what is "it" or "the Source" from the W's point of view?

[CaptPostMod]

What I'm driving at, inte... I mean, iLuvU2, is that if it is an it, it is not "it". "The Tao which can be called the Tao is not the Tao."

Nope. For example of my statement, though, please see the Middle Eastern Conflicts.

Uh...What?

Why does anyone insist on calling "it" by a singular name when it has many?

Now. First of all, the "it" doesn't represent "the Source". The reverse is the case.

That is a question that could be asked.

And since they are the source of the story and its characters, what is "it" or "the Source" from the W's point of view?

What?

[vieome]

Why talk Of Neo reaching the satori point. Is that not difining him and restricting him to one view point. My opinion is that Neo while like the satori and the christ and the Buddha, is his own person, program, God. A new(neo) GOD, so that his purpose while it emcompasses the Gods we know is of something higher. The other Gods or the enlightedned attempted to bring peace. BUt only Neo delivers peace for all. Jesus delevered a message of a way of being, but the masses in his time did not follow, it is only the evolution of his word through the Church that has made him what he is today.

The source is the unknown, and no matter how we try we will never know, of course the Oracle and Neos conversation cause confusion with the Neo thinking that the source is the mainframe. Why did the Oracle not tell neo that he was wrong because he was not ready for it. The source is all that is and ever was.
The alpha the Omega. The machines I am sure on becoming A>I looked not as man as thier creator, but the creator of man as their creator.

The source has many names GOD, the universe, allah etc etc. But is it machine, I dont believe it is.

Neos journey is simply the machines telling man we can continue fighting, or we can return to the first wisdom, that there is something greater then man and machine. And is it is pointless to fight because being of the same creator we are one. There is no difference between man and machine program.

[vieome]

Now we are all aware that there are multiple layers to the matrix and on another level the battle of machine and man is symbolic of the bad between man and man. WHY IS MAN FIGHTING MAN. So here the matrix delivers the message that we can not continue to fight each other. inte vs cpm why do you choose to ....

Well you get what I am saying. The answer embedded in the matrix at this level is that in order for man to stop fighting each other he has to return to the source of his creation. Now this is not about religion the masses being led by those with power, but about individuals gaining respect for each other. Knowing that while we are the same we are one, ohters have their own programing to deal with it. But inevitably we remain one and the same. And to know the self is to know the Neo in you and the Smith two.