Matrix and Baudrillard
Posted by admin on October 30, 2008, 6:36 pm
The floor is open for comments on The Matrix and/or Baudrillard.
12 Responses to “Matrix and Baudrillard”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Posted by admin on October 30, 2008, 6:36 pm
The floor is open for comments on The Matrix and/or Baudrillard.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
This is in response to several of the questions posed in class yesterday, and then the readings.
First, there was a question about the table in the room and subjective vs. object(ive) reality- sort of whether the table exists aside from the concept of the table. It was then suggested there was no perspective in the universe from which it is not a table.
If we look outside of human consciousness, and think about the view to an ant, is it still a table then? What is a table to an ant which has no purpose for a table? no word for a table even? the table is a long stretch of modified tree, an expansive plane it may traverse.
Let us return to human consciousness, but modify it - imagine if you could shrink to the molecular level and (magically!) still be yourself in every other way, what then would a table be? what would be discernable in the sea of electrons and protons?
And this had me thinking about quantum mechanics, and the ‘observer effect’- the idea that just observing things at the quantum level affects the thing being observed. So it would seem, not only is reality tied in with our subjective viewpoint (our history, our needs and purpose and mood even), but also with our observing and participating in reality.
Which brings me to the next question- whether memories are real. The problem with questioning semiotics, language and meaning is that everything becomes subject to question. “Are memories real?” I can’t answer without thinking- what is meant by the words “real” and “memories”? What *is* a memory? Data stored in the brain which may or may not be accurate, and which when accessed creates an electronic impulse of emotion, which may triggered by the senses, particularly smell, which may seem real or may be foggy, which may be completely false as in the sense of déjà vu, etc…? And what is meant by “real”? Veracity of recall? True/false? Or is existence enough to qualify a memory as real whether it is implanted, or inaccurate, or the result of a neural anomaly?
I think the idea behind the allegory of the cave is to not trust the sensory world, that there is much more to reality that what we can apprehend. And therefore, we must question things, live the “examined life”. The problem, as the architect in The Matrix suggests, is choice. Choosing what to question, and what to believe.
I wonder, how can philosophy operate in an area beyond language and still convey meaning? Which I think is part of the problem with trying to read Baudrillard. It becomes increasingly hard to say anything that can be true when you question the veracity of everything.
“This passion for artifice, this passion for illusion is the seductive joy of undoing the all too beautiful constellation of meaning. Letting the deception of the world, its enigmatic function, show through as well as the mystification of the world, which is its secret. All the while it gradually reveals its own pretense - deceiving rather than validating meaning… In any case, if it wants to talk about illusion, language must also become illusion… When talking about reality, language cannot do it, properly speaking, because language is never real.” (Baudrillard, The Conspiracy of Art, 175)
Baudrillard suggests one must create illusions and “cipher, not decipher… make the intelligible unintelligible…” (COA, 176). Which is certainly reinforced by his style of writing and the false quote attributed to Ecclesiastes! I just wonder what purpose it ultimately serves…
October 31st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
There’s so much that can be said about The Matrix. There are, of course, objectionable plot holes, but the movie is more for concept and presentation rather than realism. The biggest thing people seem to struggle with is the concept of predetermination, especially when considering the two sequels.
The Character of the Oracle is the representation of predetermination. In her character the Wachowski brothers play with the concept of predetermination versus foreknowledge. It is much like what Milton does in the character of Satan in his epic poem. The fact that Satan is angered by the crowning of Jesus Christ as the Messiah is ridiculous because Satan’s eventual fall is what prompts the need for the Messiah. Milton is playing with the audience’s preconceived notions of what predetermination is. In The Matrix, when Neo meets the oracle, she tells him “don’t worry about the vase” which prompts him to ask “what vase” after which he immediately knocks over and breaks the vase. This is a hint to her foreknowledge of what will immediately happen. Ironically, after this exchange she says to him “you’re cuter than I thought you’d be” showing that she isn’t all knowing. This is a way in which the writers of this movie play with the audience. So what’s the point?
I believe the point of all of this is not to make the audience seriously question the nature of predetermination versus foreknowledge, but rather the importance of pure function. That is to say that function and purpose are independent concepts from plot and narration. The Oracle acts much in the same way as “Chekhov’s gun” in her enigmatic and sometimes unreliable prophesies. Morpheus says it best when he tells Neo “she told you what you needed to hear.” The oracle is a being of pure function. She exists independently of the Matrix, but also independently of the resistance. She exists to aid no one, but rather to propel the inevitable future and to perpetuate the end result. This is easier to see in the second and third movies when it is discovered (by the audience) that the anomaly of “The One” is a regular and calculable event. The purpose of the oracle is to further the function of “The One,” but not necessarily to further the ambitions of the rebellion. Function is the only constant in the movie. Concept is based on this function, the cycle of “The One” is also based on this, and the maintained equilibrium between the humans and machines is based on this concept of function.
The hole: Neo chose against the preconceived function of “The One.” Instead he threw off the balance of this symbiotic relationship and, ironically, he creates a new balance. Thus the end result is a purpose independent of function, one that is based on acute intent. So, is the Oracle Chekhov’s gun? Is Neo?
November 1st, 2008 at 5:23 am
When thinking about Matrix, Baudrillard, and the discussion in class, my first instinct is to ask questions similar to Netlucia’s posting above. What is “real?” Is there an objective, material, reality that exists as an independent physical structure? Certainly, to have a reasonable basis for discussion of the question from class, we have to agree to some working definitions, or we at least need to identify the variations at part of the discussion.
I think the problem that drives the difficult to resolve circular considerations brought up in Baudrillard, the Matrix, and the questions or statements from class, is the hard-to-break-out-of concept of dichotomy that has always framed our philosophical discussions. And I’ll jump past all the examples and go right to good old “right or wrong, true or false.” In order to be convinced that reality exists or doesn’t, or that one reality is real and another a simulation, or there is meaning or no meaning, one has to accept the basic premise of the dichotomy—not just that there is a true or false, that those concepts function exclusively. If A is true, then B is false. If there is one material reality, or one absolute truth that exists outside of and inviolate to perception, then any other is not reality, or truth. The problems become irresolvable contradictions because the wrong or right premise cannot encompass contradictions. If we can allow that more than one thing can be true, and a little more difficult, that the opposite of truth can also be true, we can begin to change the frame. I guess this may explain why one my all time favorite quotes is:
Do I contradict myself?
Then I contradict myself.
I am vast
I contain multitudes.
–Walt Whitman
We mentioned the term “consensual reality” in class, but the idea of “local” reality is useful as well. We can study something, conceptual or physical, in the context of local reality, and the determinations are not less true or valuable just because they may lose their validity in the context of another reality. Baudrillard proposes that reality ceases to exist and becomes the simulation, but this assumes there was an original, real reality. Taken from the other direction, one could argue that the simulations are no more or less real than the original. So, rather than say this one is real, and the rest are fakes, we could say each is real, and the rest are also real, unique originals. Even if the Abrahamic creation myth is taken literally, God’s creation could be seen as a “simulation” of the world “he” imagined; and then Baudrillard has no original “real” to start with. So, maybe I’ll end with a parallel to the “Tree falls in the forest. . .” Zen koan mentioned in class, something like: If god made a universe and didn’t tell anyone about it, would it be real?
November 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
When I watched The Matrix for this class, I was already familiar with Jean Baudrillard and his ideas of Simulation and Simulacra. With this knowledge in my mind already, I found myself looking for similarities and connections.
Baudrillard uses Disney Land as an example of simulacra. When Disney Land was first created, it was intended to be an ideal of the perfect American city. It is a place, originally, to escapes reality and enter a world of make believe. Everything seems perfect in this place and Baudrillard claims that it was created to make the rest of the world seem real. Disney Land has transformed over time into a norm, thus breaking the imaginary line and making it a reality. We are all so removed from its original purpose as a fantasy, that we accept it as a reality. Disney Land, the simulation, becomes a reality and the original reality no longer exists.
The Matrix was created at first to be the perfect world. It was a “fantasy” of what the “real” world could be. However, as the matrix thrives, the inhabitants are unaware of the actual world and do not know it is a simulation. To them, it is the real world. As the matrix gets older and people (or machines) are further and further removed from knowledge of the reality, the matrix becomes reality.
On a side not of whether or not I would take the red pill or blue pill, I stick with my conviction that I would take the blue pill. I am all for taking chances and experiencing new things, however I like to believe the things in my life are real—my friends, my family, my memories, my passions. To find out these things were not real or even imitations of real things, I would find out that I am not real. I am more content believing I live in reality and I am willing to risk not knowing that I’m living in a hyper-reality.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 am
I’d like to discuss the concept of hacking in The Matrix, with a focus on Morpheus and The Oracle.
My fellow classmate, adubov describes the word, “hacker” in another post. According to this user, a hacker is a being that “subverts an established system.” In “The Matrix”, this description is definitely true in the obvious sense. The Nebuchadnezzar team is responsible for protecting the sanctity of Zion. It does this through fighting against the system put in place by the Agents. However, the description also fits on a more specific level in that several characters (Morpheus and the Oracle esp.) manipulate and re-contour Neo’s mind. It would be pretty unwise to say that Neo made the decision to join the resistance team completely on his own accord. Morpheus (and Trinity as well) invaded Neo’s/Tom Anderson’s dreams and through these invasions, they amplified his suspicions about life as he knew it.
In Greek mythology, Morpheus is the god of dreams. This deity has the ability to send images of humans in dreams, and more importantly, it is responsible for giving context to said images. The context can be interpreted as a meaningful message that applies to real life. Like this deity, Morpheus of “The Matrix” enters Neo’s dreams and piques his curiosity about the Matrix. He hacks into Neo’s mind, so much so, that Neo gets to the point where can no longer live the life that the blue pill had to offer. After recovering from his removal from the matrix, Neo again is manipulated through curiosity when Morpheus tells him that he is “the one,” without giving a clear cut reason as to why.
The Greek god Morpheus, is also known to take any human form. This is representative of The Oracle, who Neo meets later. We find out in the third Matrix movie that The Oracle changes identity so that he/she/it can get the most effective message across to whoever/whatever he/she/it is talking to. Clearly, this change of appearance is a sense of hacking in that a visitor won’t be able to take the Oracle’s words as verbatim. In Neo’s case, we see a cheerful, middle-aged woman who wasn’t what Neo expected when hearing about an Oracle. After the Oracle tells Neo that he isn’t “the one,” despite Morpheus’ beliefs, it causes Neo to be upset and forlorn, but when it became time to cut to the chase, he still proved himself to be “the one”
Perhaps, if the oracle were presented as a more ominous character, then Neo would not have had the confidence to overcome the Agents. Conversely, if the Oracle had told Neo that he was “the one,” then he could have possibly become overconfident to the point where he couldn’t perform his tasks efficiently. I believe that the Oracle played with Neo’s mind, so that he would be able to perform the tasks ahead of him. I believe that if it weren’t for the Oracle’s statement, Neo probably would not have been able to save Morpheus and deflect the bullets from the agent, either due to overconfidence or lack thereof.
I will conclude this by saying that Morpheus and The Oracle are certainly not the only ones that hacked into Neo’s mind/thought processes. We have Trinity whose love gave Neo jolt back to life. We have Cypher who made Neo wonder if it was really worth it and we have the AIs who make him question his abilities. And there are other characters still who hacked into Neo’s mind. However, I happen to think that the hacking of Morpheus and The Oracle was what really led to Neo admitting to be
—————————
**God, I’m had SUCH a hard time writing this. I have no idea why…. I hope it isn’t too unclear**
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
To continue with what seems to be a trend on the topic of reality, I find interesting the fact that people seem to be missing the larger argument about reality, and it is not what is reality, but what does reality mean? That sounds like the same thing, but what I mean to say is, so what?
We can see clearly this dilemma in The Matrix with the dichotomy presented between Cypher’s character and Morpheus’. Morpheus spends the better part of his adult life convinced that there is a deep fault in the way people are living in the Matrix. He believes in the importance of freedom that one can only attain in the “real world”, Zion, and he believes that there is no other option but to liberate the human race. Morpheus, then, believes that there is a certain quality to living in the “real” world that is not present in the Matrix. To him, it is not enough to live in a simulation of reality. Cypher, on the other hand, has no problem accepting the Matrix as his reality. In his mind, the illusion of freedom and reality is just as good as the real thing. For Cypher, then, the “real” world possesses no particular attribute that he cannot find in a simulated real world.
Baudrillard’s reasoning in closest to Morpheus’, in that he believes that there is a problem with the way the world has distorted what is “real”. For Baudrillard, we now live in a hyper reality, and what was once “real” is now lost to us, and this is a problem. But I stand to argue Cypher’s position, and challenge Baudrillard to explain just exactly what is so precious about “real”. If we all truly do live in this hyperreality, as he defines it, where exactly is the problem? Baudrillard, and similarly Morpheus, fails to prove to me where the ingenuity lies; what makes reality so special?
Personally I believe that reality is subjective, not objective, and it is only as valuable as you perceive it to be. In this light, Baudrillard could argue himself in circles trying to convince me that humanity has suffered a cataclysmic loss in its shift from reality into hyper reality because I don’t see how we are the worse off for having lost it. How is what we are living in today not a reality? What is real, in my opinion, is what is happening at any given moment in time. Even in the Matrix, what’s going on may be a programmed simulation, but it is still real, just a real simulation. This is an oxymoron that perhaps Morpheus and Baudrillard would not be able to accept, yet logically it makes sense. Reality is how we seek to define it, and in my definition it is all encompassing. So whatever Baudrillard may thinks we have lost, I argue that we have not lost anything, things have merely changed and developed. Our reality remains the same in that it is our reality, and nothing can ever change that fact.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
First, I must say that the Matrix is one of the best movies of all time. (Only the first one) The idea of the Matrix is very problematic to organized religion and appears to undercut most of what we believe to be the foundation for the religions that preach predestination. There is this inescapable theme of questioning if predestination exists and if we truly have a choice in our lives. Neo does not believe in religion because he believes that he is in control of his fate; this is despite the fact that the Oracle appears to have prior knowledge about everything. However this is complicated by the idea that it is our mind and our perception of reality that create the world (not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.) Since the matrix “our world” is merely electrical impulses telling out mind what to conceive, then the power that most people have over their minds is insignificant. The only exception to the rule would be Neo “The One,” is appears as though he is the only one who can control his reality. The only way he does this is through becoming a “Demigod” or super human. (Which is ironic because the term demigod is also used for the ultimate hackers within a system.) Although it appears that the Oracle is able to discern the choices that Neo must make, she ultimately simply gives him a scenario and two paths. She never gives a concrete depiction of the future. Religion works in a similar fashion; in life you are constantly confronted with choices. Religious theology is supposed to give you the foundation for the decision that you make, and if you make the right choice you will transcend into Heaven. The Matrix complicates this notion because Neo can control his reality, and his fate. Therefore within the context of the film it is uncertain if there is a true Oracle, and through religion it is not clear if the creator has absolute control.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Raven Adams
ENGL479W
Professor Fraistat
December 04, 2008
The Matrix
While a few of the posts touch on this, I want to explore the question of how Neo “became” the One within the context of fate and the conversation with the Oracle. Would Neo have become the One if he had not met with the Oracle?
In a previous post afurbush played around with the idea that the movie presents two offers with the introduction of the Oracle; predetermination and foreknowledge. However, after reading the post, I do not think afurbush used the correct terms. The post makes more sense if one replaces the word predetermination with “self-fulfilling prophecy,” which is slightly different. Predetermination deals with having an unchangeable destiny; that is, Neo is the One, he was always meant to be the One and he has no choice. While self-fulfilling prophecy deals with the idea that Neo becomes the One because he was told that he was not the One, and his subsequent actions lead to him becoming the One. That being said, I think the movie explores all three themes when considering Neo’s journey toward becoming the One.
When viewing Neo and Oracle’s first interaction only in the context of the original movie, one can argue that the Oracle employs both foreknowledge and the self-fulfilling prophecy. She tells Neo not to worry about the vase and he asks “What vase?” before immediately turning to knock it over. She then asks Neo whether he would have broken the vase had she not mention it at all. Here she presents the question of the self-fulfilling prophecy. A person hears the prophecy and, in investigating it, causes it to come true. When looking at the scene in this way, the viewer must assume that the Oracle is prescient. In order for her to lead Neo into breaking the vase, she has to have already seen that he will break the vase if she mentioned it. Otherwise, Neo could have simply asked “What vase?” without actually turning to break it. She has to have foreknowledge of Neo’s reaction to her comment in order for that comment to be effective. Of course, this is all assuming that the Oracle’s end objective was to cause Neo to break the vase. Perhaps she asked the question for kicks and to see his reaction. This idea, when coupled with the Oracle’s later comment “You’re cuter than I thought”, presents the possibility that the Oracle is not all seeing. It is erroneous, however, to assume that this comment negates her prescience. Precognition is not the same as omniscience. The aforementioned simply means that one knows about things/events before they occur, not necessarily that one knows of all things before they occur. Perhaps her vision was simply that of knowing that a man would come wondering if he is the One. There is no indication that she should know what he looks like, and should therefore know how “cute” he is. We are also assuming that what she says is true when it does not have to be. This is highlighted when we know that the Oracle tells Neo he is not the One and yet he really is the One.
The smaller event of the vase echoes the larger and more integral question of the movie, “Would Neo have become the One had the Oracle not mentioned Morpheus’ death?” I do not think so. Again this is all highlighting the idea that the Oracle is prescient and therefore could see Morpheus in danger, orchestrate events so that Neo would become the One.
The audience is also given a contradiction in this scene. The Oracle tells Neo he is not the One, but this contradicts with Morpheus’ prophecy about finding the One and Trinity’s prophecy about falling in love with the One. Of course, we learn later that Neo is the One. So why does the Oracle lie to Neo? As with the vase, is she simply telling Neo what he needed to hear to spur him into becoming the One? I’ll argue that Neo’s belief that Morpheus is willing to die for him when he isn’t the One is the catalyst to Neo becoming the One. That level of empathy and pity for Morpheus spurs Neo into rescuing Morpheus and consequently becoming the One. Or perhaps she tells him he isn’t the One because he isn’t the One yet. Either way, her vague prophecies are both mystifying and effective. The prophecies she gives; for Trinity, Morpheus, Neo, and about Morpheus’ death; each lead Neo into becoming the One. I believe the Oracle gives these prophecies deliberately. She seems to mention Morpheus’ death by accident, but there is nothing in her personality that indicates she would say anything unintentionally.
The question of whether or not the Oracle can see the future is nullified in the sequel when we learn that she is in fact a Matrix program. Coupled with the knowledge that these events have all happened before relegates the Oracle’s “prescience” to mere knowledge of what has happened before and/or a programs superior ability to predict outcomes and behavior through advanced probability analysis. Predetermination comes into play when we learn that Neo’s entire life since the “cradle” has been carefully arranged so that he would have the personality he has and make the choices he did. He has been “programmed” into becoming the One. The Oracle could simply have known he would be the One because he was designed to be the One.
Whether Neo becomes the One because of predetermination or because of prophecies given by the Oracle does not matter too much at all. The more important point is that Neo’s “destiny” is not destiny at all, but a series of manipulations that lead him to an end result. Neo does not truly make a choice until he must choose between Trinity’s life and the lives of the entire human race.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Even though the war in the Matrix is fought between men and machines, the movie suggests the mechanic, machine-like qualities in humans, as well as human qualities in the machines to show the complicated relationship of dependency between humans and machines.
There are two categories of mankind presented in the movie: the freed, and the ones still imprisoned within the Matrix. The mechanic qualities of people entrapped in the Matrix is rather obvious, as their bodies are used to supply energy to the machines. In an essence, people in the Matrix are batteries for machines. However, these mechanical qualities can be found in the freed people, especially in terms of Neo and Trinity. They are both dressed in black, androgynous outfits and always in sunglasses while they are in the Matrix, which works in hiding their identity and furthermore making one almost indistinguishable from the other in description, as if they’re mass-produced. Furthermore, Neo and Trinity’s martial arts skill and the battle scenes within the Matrix further emphasize their endurance, in which they never seemed to be tired after taking on agents after agents. The lack of emotions shown in these characters further enhance the mechanic qualities who are driven to serve only one purpose, of freeing people from the Matrix. Lastly, the humans are like machines in the movie in that they have no choice. People still controlled by the Matrix obviously lacks free will and choice because their lives are predestined and programmed by the Matrix. While people freed from the Matrix believe that they have made the choice to be free and that they are now completely independent, even major characters like Neo, Trinity and Morpheus are ultimately driven by their circumstances and self-fulfilling prophecies. The lack of free choice in the movie, or at least the lack of free will in the actions of the characters ultimately makes humans more similar to machines than they would like to think.
The machines in the movie, similarly, feature human characteristics that further shows the dichotomy of the relationship and that machines and humans have an interdependent relationship. For instance, the agents are less restricted by the rules than the common perception of machines. Even their movements are fluid, and they are able to analyze the situation perceptively, seeking for help or adapting to the situations as they fit, showing the flexibility in their thought processes. Furthermore, in the scene where Agent Smith is talking to the captured Morpheus, Agent Smith expresses strong feelings of disgust and hate that he feels towards people as well as the Matrix, showing his emotional capability, an attribute widely believed to be exclusively for humans rather than machines.
One of the reasons why the writers made machines and humans so similar in their characteristics could be to question perhaps the relationship between the two, and to examine how humanity has been affected by technology, especially in terms of artificial intelligence. Despite the rather negative connotations of the term “machine-like,” people are like machines, perhaps because we interact with machines, rely on them on many aspects of our lives. Even more so, the similarity could attribute to the fact that the term “human” is no longer an exclusive word reserved for humanity, as rapid developments of technology attempts to assert human characteristics to machines, creating artificial intelligence. It is true that the machines rely on humans for survival in the movie. While the reverse does not apply to humans, the similarities within people and machines in The Matrix show the interdependency of humans and machines, and further blurs the line between machines and humans.
December 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I would like to make some comments about The Matrix. First of all, Keanu Reeves did a good job at acting in it so anyone who says he is not good is just jealous. Now, down to business. Many people who I have come into contact with say that The Matrix is a very confusing film. I completely agree with them, but I must ask why is it confusing? I think that it is a film that really makes the audience think outside of the box. That is, our lives are not what they may really seem. There may be something bigger than us or there may not be. That is what makes people so uncomfortable with this movie. It forces them to take a look at their own beliefs. I, personally, am a Catholic, but those are just my beliefs in a higher power and something existing beyond this earth. However, they are just beliefs. It is all about faith. The Matrix makes the audience wonder that their lives could all just be some sort of dream. It is a very scary thought but it is something all human beings must come to terms with.
Also of interest, is why does Neo take the red pill? While it is true that people were stalking him and he wanted to get away, there was no telling that the red pill could have been poisonous. I believe that there was that whole need for fear living within in Neo, which made him take the red pill. People always say that they hate being scared, but deep down it is a rather thrilling and enjoyable emotion. It is kind of like when we are little kids watching a really scary movie and we cover our eyes or look the other way. We know that we should not be watching the scary movie because it will keep us up all night or give us nightmares, yet, we still are tempted to take our hands away from our eyes and keep watching the grotesque and dreadful horror because deep down, it intrigues us, just like the red pill intrigued Neo.
December 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
The Matrix explores the skeptical problem of epistemology. How do we know what is real? If our sensorium, sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch are just electrical signals interpreted by the brain, then could electrical signals could be substituted or altered? The Matrix provides a caveat. Everyone trapped inside is aware of the matrix, if only on an unconscious level. The architect tells Neo that the current iteration of the matrix requires the unconscious assent of the subject in order to entrap him. Furthermore, when Neo is first approached by Morpheus, he is told that, “you’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain. But you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life. That there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me.” In other words, the matrix, despite the computational force and the brilliant AI behind it cannot completely overwhelm every faculty of the subject.
Certain cultures, however, already experiment with substances that can alter reality so powerfully that unlike “popular” hallucinogenic drugs, the user cannot distinguish between reality and hallucination. LSD or psilocybin can produce sensory distortions. However, Datura stramonium, or jimson weed, contains tropane alkaloids that can produce real hallucinations. The name from Datura comes from early Sanskrit. Dahatura means “divine inebriation”. Under the trance that results from use, the user is completely disconnected from his natural environment. He responds to people and objects that are miles away or never existed, and is unaware of actual stimuli in preference to imagined ones. Overdoses are common because the hallucinations are indistinguishable from reality, and the user will not realize that the drug is working.
I mention Datura because of a trope, among skeptics, to provide a glimmer of hope in their calculations. Descartes, like Neo, finds his way out of the skeptical labyrinth. In his Meditations he posits a demon that has completely subverted the philosopher’s sensorium: “I will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity.” However, he is also aware of a strong inclination to believe his senses. Surely the Creator created this inclination within him? And “since God is no deceiver, it necessarily follows that I am not herein deceived.”
Datura can produce a world absolutely as real and dynamic as this one. This means that despite the goodness of God, our inclination to believe in what is apparent and tactile can be completely misled. We are all still imprisoned in the Cartesian Labyrinth. If Morpheus is right, and humanity can still feel, somehow, that we are trapped in a neural-interactive simulation, it means that the machines have technologically stepped backwards around 3000 years. The sensorium can be absolutely hoodwinked.
And as for the Architect’s idea that humanity can’t be misled without choice? Explain that to the British soldiers who gave jimson weed its name. Jimson is a corruption of Jamestown; some of the soldiers who travelled there to quell Bacon’s Rebellion were drugged with it, or ate it accidentally. What is sure is that for eleven days they went absolutely insane, walking naked in public, speaking to imaginary friends and foes, and after the week and a half returned to normal, not remembering a single thing that had passed.
December 12th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
In this blog post I want to discuss the way in which we define reality through the quote by Agent Smith in The Matrix:
“Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program. Entire crops were lost. Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world. But I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery. The perfect world was a dream that your primitive cerebrum kept trying to wake up from. Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization.”
Agent Smith says that humans define their reality through suffering, which makes sense because often when we see people very happy (having money, a family, material possessions) we also see them destroy that by doing something that blows it apart. People who go through a great experience will often say, “Pinch me!” so that they know they are not dreaming. It is interesting that people would ask to suffer to break them from their happiness. It appears as though our reality is defined by opposites. We must have an opposite to know that there is reality in one thing. Baudrillard discusses this in Simulacra and Simulation by using the quote from Ecclesiastes: “The simulacrum is never what hides the truth – it is truth that hides the fact that there is none. The simulacrum is true” (Baudrillard, 1). The Book of Ecclesiastes talks about how there is nothing new and that everything is a reference to something else. One thing has been done before and whatever has come after is just another version of the original.
When we look at Post-Modernist theory, it explains that we define our reality through language and it is interesting the way we follow the three orders of simulacra: image, production, and information. As the human race progresses it attempts to make things more and more complicated. As we grow up we like to learn more complicated words in order to define our reality. We use words such as “antiquated” to define something that looks old. We attempt to make things more complex and when we do this we make ourselves suffer by trying to find new ways to understand these words. Our reality is defined by reference to an ideology as well. Words are a type of ideology because they are symbols for what something is, may be, or was. By being able to refer to something we can shape our understanding. Our reality is defined by references to a type of ideology, and yet because we attempt to complicate our lives with these symbols/ideologies, we suffer. We suffer because we lose touch with reality because we complicate it and forget its original meaning. We try to separate it into categories, but in each category, there are subcategories and in these subcategories each category makes a reference to something else, which is why reality is a simulacra. There are opposites: Happy and sad, light and dark, yet these words and categories become intertwined and they layer each other. This causes us to suffer in confusion, but at least as long as we keep attempting to define it, we know that our reality in whatever form is there.