The Matrix Fans 2007 forums

[CaptPostMod]

Great posts, vieome.

[iLuvU2]

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."

I know that. The point I'm driving at is not everyone calls it "Tao" anyway, or even heard the word or the concept before. But despite your misunderstanding of this quote, I'm sure you and others know that everyone calls it something.

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

That's a question you've not answered since I first asked you. So tell me, why is it called "the Source" in The Matrix?

And I hope you know that in the Middle East and like conflicts everywhere the people concerned don't believe they are talking about the same "it". So do you think you can solve the problem by simply telling them that they are or do you think a bit more is needed?

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.

Yes it is restricting. So cpm could be asked why he uses this term for it, when it has many. Or more important what other names are there for it?

So here the matrix delivers the message that we can not continue to fight each other. inte vs cpm why do you choose to ....

That is not the message delivered. And this is why people don't find out anything, because any discussion that actually goes anywhere is called a "fight" for some strange reason. The message delivered is finding out about other perspectives without the usual internal strife that accompanies this kind of inquiry.

[CaptPostMod]

... I'm sure you and others know that everyone calls it something.

I would love to believe that is not true. Someone must have become enlightened at some point.

So tell me, why is it called "the Source" in The Matrix?

Don't know. Why?

And I hope you know that in the Middle East and like conflicts everywhere the people concerned don't believe they are talking about the same "it."

What does their belief have to do with the conversation at hand? From an inclusive standpoint, the arguement is a semantic and humanly theological one, yes?

So do you think you can solve the problem by simply telling them that they are or do you think a bit more is needed?

I do not believe I can solve the problem.

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.

I did argue for defining Satori correctly many moons ago. However, I also conceded that arguement many moons ago.

I only retain the term because it is the one Wachowski uses (like "the Source"). Any comparable term would be fine.

[iLuvU2]

I would love to believe that is not true. Someone must have become enlightened at some point.

Okay, but you know what I mean.

And I hope you know that in the Middle East and like conflicts everywhere the people concerned don't believe they are talking about the same "it."

What does their belief have to do with the conversation at hand? We understand their arguement to be semantic, yes?

Yes, but how did we come to this understanding?

I only retain the term because it is the one Wachowski uses (like "the Source"). Any term would be fine, so long as it pointed to the moon.

Do you know any other terms?

Don't know. Why?

I think you do know. But I also suspect that you do not wish light to be shed on such things. I'm just trying to understand your perspective for doing that. But, if in fact, I'm wrong and you don't know, that would make sense to me just the same. As for Satori, and you conceding, you must have come to the conclusion that defining what happened in the film to one particular perspective would be to miss the point, but then you did the same thing later with Sati,*scratches head*, anyway later for that. I refer back to Rama Kandra who, regarding Karma, said, "...another way to say..."

Edit:
If I could be permitted a little digression. When you closely consider the cultures in the Middle East region as an example to what I've been saying, you will see that in other areas they seem to agree. That is, they eat the same stuff, shun eating the same stuff, have similar recipes for preparing it, and have almost the same words for things. Heck, while I'm at it, I'll just say that the people I know from the area used to exchange recipes and other things with each other. My point is when it comes to other areas of life, there is some consideration. Not so when it comes to perceptions of the meaning of life. That is how some people are, I guess.

[CaptPostMod]

Okay, but you know what I mean.

Not really. I'm pretty lost on the conversation at this point in general. What are we talking about?

As for Satori, and you conceding, you must have come to the conclusion that defining what happened in the film to one particular perspective would be to miss the point, but then you did the same thing later with Sati...

Well that was very hypocritical of me, wasn't it?

[iLuvU2]

Well that was very hypocritical of me, wasn't it?

I absolve thee, my son. LOL But we both know that's besides the point.

I'm pretty lost on the conversation at this point in general. What are we talking about?

Now that you mention it, what ARE you talking about?

[CaptPostMod]

Now that you mention it, what ARE you talking about?

Um ... I asked if the Oracle was an oracle for something, I think.

You?

[iLuvU2]

I was picking up from this point.

My opinion is that is the go between, for man and the source.

Me, too. We assume "oracle" just means she gives prophecies. But that would make her the Prophet or Fortune-Teller. She is the Oracle. And the word oracle doesn't mean someone who can tell the future and give prophecies. It means someone who speaks on behalf of a deity.

The only deity I could see the Oracle as speaking on behalf of is the Source.

So "the Source" is a deity?

[CaptPostMod]

I was picking up from this point.

My opinion is that is the go between, for man and the source.

Me, too. We assume "oracle" just means she gives prophecies. But that would make her the Prophet or Fortune-Teller. She is the Oracle. And the word oracle doesn't mean someone who can tell the future and give prophecies. It means someone who speaks on behalf of a deity.

The only deity I could see the Oracle as speaking on behalf of is the Source.

So "the Source" is a deity?

In the model referrenced, yes.

[iLuvU2]

I was picking up from this point.

My opinion is that is the go between, for man and the source.

Me, too. We assume "oracle" just means she gives prophecies. But that would make her the Prophet or Fortune-Teller. She is the Oracle. And the word oracle doesn't mean someone who can tell the future and give prophecies. It means someone who speaks on behalf of a deity.

The only deity I could see the Oracle as speaking on behalf of is the Source.

So "the Source" is a deity?

In the model referrenced, yes.

Explain.

[CaptPostMod]

Explain.

Explain what?

[vieome]

That's a question you've not answered since I first asked you. So tell me, why is it called "the Source" in The Matrix?

I think to understand this is to simply understand the basic meaning of source. Source is a starting point as in source of a river.
The matrix universe is all created by the source. But as I said before I think the misconception in what the source is brought about by the ref that it might be the machine mainframe. The one thing that the matrix brings about is the idea that there is no God, and it is all about man and machine, but I think as a philosphy excercise, and I am sure the wachows understood it that the matrix universe could not work with out the concept of God, Hence the source.

[iLuvU2]

So, how is "the Source" a deity or God?

[CaptPostMod]

So, how is "the Source" a deity or God?

How?

[iLuvU2]

Yeah. How?