Thoughts on Matrix Reloaded

I have to argue – regardless of the fact that my friend don’t want to. I need it – thoughts flowing once more. Anyway, our entire argument went haywire: from the blessedness of Sundays, to the idea of immortality and we ended up with hermeneutics and the problem/ingenuity of deconstruction in interpretations (despite of an ant falling in my coffee cup and throwing it away, going back to the kitchen and making another brew – but this is not part of the topic: I just cant help saying it.)

Ok. Side comments away. We were chatting about the impossibility of a purely objective interpretation: as she was pointing out that the boundaries and limitations of language is what defines reality. Without which, we will be having fleeting meanings, and not holding on to any concept but pure abstraction of things – to which I categorically interpreted as descent to an ‘unreal’ world.

While the chat was ongoing, I was getting bored about her mumblings and so I started watching the “matrix reloaded”. (I can read, argue and watch something all at the same time – multitasking!) I thought I already understood the entire trilogy (though the matrix reloaded is my fave), but while listening to the scene between Neo and the Architect – I started thinking about the irony of interpretation, something that I haven’t seen in my previous experiences of watching it. (I’ve watched it so many times now but this particular experience is different!).

Suddenly, Heraclitus’ idea that you cannot cross a river twice keeps on occurring in my brain, like a broken vinyl record. And so, I’ve told my friend of this idea – that our experiences of things get deeper and more meaningful every single day due to our experiences (and perhaps maturity) on how we perceive things. If we hold on to labels and a single interpretation of something, we are delimiting our capacity for transcendence and progress. I hate stability (hence I hate sitting in one place), its all about dynamism. I mentioned her about laws that don’t change – these are the kind of laws (norms) that produce discrimination and injustices vis-à-vis her feminist ideas. (ie: women are still considered second class citizens because society doesn’t want to overthrow the idea of patriarchal-ism.)

She rebutted with the idea that what if our experiences doesn’t make us more mature? What if it mutates us into miserable creatures? (which again almost pushed me to the classic: define-miserable-kind-of-question but i did not coz thats too mainstream) Which I refuted by explaining the Darwinian theory that evolution always aim for progress: re: the human person: we are maturing. Evolution is always beneficial in such a way that those who don’t have the capability to adapt, fades in the background. In this case, we mature if we reflect and think of our actions. (The limiting factor is that not all human beings reflect on their experiences, however, everybody has the capacity to do so. Those who don’t do it are those that are naturally selected to fade: But it’s all a matter of choice. If they choose not to think, then that’s beyond my argument already.)

She again refuted my idea that when we don’t hold on to any precise-objective definition, we will fall to the traps of nihilism, and in such – there will be subjectivity and erroneous results that may lead to conflict. People are already contented into the things deemed as “true”, “right”, and “fair” – in a blatant way of saying it, comfort-zones. However, the fact of the matter is these meta-narratives are completely preposterous as they disregard the heterogeneity of experiences. Given the innumerable sequences of actions and reactions – sciences fail to include also preferences and personalities (including environmental factors) which will make the permutations of possibilities close to infinity!

As lip-like service as it may seem, but Parmenides will always be in the picture: CHANGE! so as with conflict – it always produces change.  She again mentioned that: Change can be good (transcendence) or destructive (descendence) what if conflict caused destruction? That’s my entire point. It can be destructive but, there is also a possibility that it can create something BEAUTIFUL! Will we sacrifice a thing of beauty that might have been created due to the illogical fear that it ‘might’ destroy pre-given morals/truths? Will we stick to the pre-given realities even though we know that we have the capability to see a better reality? (Actually, i am also not sure if such 'better' reality really exists. i only said that for the sake of the argument. I was already thinking a rebuttal: using hope as my armament if ever she asks about it, but good thing, she did not coz i myself don't know if such reality really exists. nonetheless, I do hope it does) In fact, the mere fact I say reality is already too delimiting for a post modernist, but just so I can state my point. Furthermore, it is the hope that must be retained – a hope why we must flow and think and be curious and try to unravel the triviality of life.

Damnation is caused by the loss of hope. The conversation between the anomaly in the equation (Neo), and the mechanical father of the matrix (Architect), gave me these impulsive overflowing thoughts. The character of the "oracle" as a necessary conjunct to the role of the "architect" without which human clones, used as energy resource for the machines, die easily.

The oracle provides the human side which the calculable mind of the architect can't account for.

I mentioned to her that the limitless potential of the mind to think is what gives color and life to this pathetically doomed reality. When we are so angry, depressed, happy or any other emotion, we need to think and assess it closely. Yes we may commit errors, but those errors are our ways to be better and learn! Perfection is an illusion (even computers, as objective as they are suffers from errors, viruses and bugs) but those small things are what makes programmers think and learn. 

Going back to the movie, without this human variability in the matrix, the program that simulates a human living existence, the mechanistic and calculable character of the matrix cannot suffice for the normal living state of a human being. The necessary result is the existence of Neo as the anomaly which can't be corrected by the system itself.

That anomaly is the thing that makes the movie amazing, and interpretations richer. We humans avoid strict categorizations.

In concluding my point: We can never really have just one interpretation of something: it is our way of balancing our scales. There is no monopoly of ideas (though I monopolized the entire argument) rather, accept the Derrida’s philosophy of differance and difference! Meaning will always be elusive – truth and reality will always escape our grasp BUT that doesn't mean we can't try given our capabilities and it also doesn't mean that we can not hope! :)