The Matrix

I think it's fairly common that artists, writers, etc borrow symbols from various systems to get across their intended meaning without adopting the ideology itself. Also, the Matrix uses a handful of what could be identified as Christian symbols, but are in fact much older. When you look at the context of the movie and it's symbolism I don't see what would connect their use of Zion to Zionism.

Wikipedia states Zion can also mean 'the world to come', and I think that may be close to what they were going for.
 
I have a question.

As we know, "Matrix" is loaded with esoteric symbolism and "V for vendetta" with information about pathocracy.
If PTB didn't want something to get published it wouldn't and same would be true for the opposite, OSIT.

The fact that both movies were quite expensive and very well aesthetically done suggest that the PTB had their fingers in it, or so it seems.
And the accuracy of the symbolism of objective reality and deep thruths rule out the possibility of it being the coincidence, or done by someone without good knowledge of objective reality.

So, what I'm get here at is; it seems like both of these 2 movies were allowed to be published because someone with knowledge wanted it to happen. But who and why?
Could it be that PTB had nothing to do with it?

I just ask these questions because I haven't seen them being asked before that I know of.
 
Serendipity said:
I just ask these questions because I haven't seen them being asked before that I know of.

As for my personal thoughts: there are many people who have a particular vision of truth, high level abstract understandings of reality and active imaginations. In the final analysis, movies are primarily about making money. They may also be about experimentation with social perception and reaction for all I know.

At any rate, would the answers to those questions really change anything? I'm just curious.
 
Serendipity said:
I have a question.

As we know, "Matrix" is loaded with esoteric symbolism and "V for vendetta" with information about pathocracy.
If PTB didn't want something to get published it wouldn't and same would be true for the opposite, OSIT.

The fact that both movies were quite expensive and very well aesthetically done suggest that the PTB had their fingers in it, or so it seems.
And the accuracy of the symbolism of objective reality and deep thruths rule out the possibility of it being the coincidence, or done by someone without good knowledge of objective reality.

So, what I'm get here at is; it seems like both of these 2 movies were allowed to be published because someone with knowledge wanted it to happen. But who and why?
Could it be that PTB had nothing to do with it?

I just ask these questions because I haven't seen them being asked before that I know of.

This thread might help clarify - http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,11824.msg84425.html#msg84425
 
Buddy said:
At any rate, would the answers to those questions really change anything? I'm just curious.
I didn't say it would change anything globally or anything like that, if that's what you meant.
IMO, answer to any question changes the understanding of the person who asks the question and adds to his/her knowledge and awareness, OSIT. And knowledge protects.

I'm asking simply cause it seems like a legit question to ask, and I was being curious. Answering that question may not change anything visibly in the world, but may offer a hint of how and why the masters of our world operate. I could be wrong in my thinking of course.

EDIT: thanks for the link :)
 
Serendipity said:
The fact that both movies were quite expensive and very well aesthetically done suggest that the PTB had their fingers in it, or so it seems.
And the accuracy of the symbolism of objective reality and deep thruths rule out the possibility of it being the coincidence, or done by someone without good knowledge of objective reality.

So, what I'm get here at is; it seems like both of these 2 movies were allowed to be published because someone with knowledge wanted it to happen. But who and why?
Could it be that PTB had nothing to do with it?

I am thinking along similiar lines. It is surprising that somebody like the Wachowski Brothers who had only directed two kind of flat films before would suddenly come out with this. I am not saying that they are not able or talented, just the difference is quite astonishing. Obviously there was a lot of money and technical assistance involved. As to your questions I don't know either, but they are interesting.

Buddy said:
At any rate, would the answers to those questions really change anything? I'm just curious.

Yes, I think it would - for people who wanna know the truth.
It's doubtful however that anybody will find out.

I haven't read the thread yet that Anart quoted, it looks interesting and I will catch up tonight.

Reading over my last posts I didn't mean to imply that the movie was financed by Zionists or the like, it just occured to me that the choice of the name was somehow peculiar. It is a movie with a strong Judeo-Christian background and that makes me a bit cautious.

(Disclaimer: I haven't seen Matrix 3 yet)

EmmeYa
 
EmmeYa said:
I am thinking along similiar lines. It is surprising that somebody like the Wachowski Brothers who had only directed two kind of flat films before would suddenly come out with this. I am not saying that they are not able or talented, just the difference is quite astonishing. Obviously there was a lot of money and technical assistance involved. As to your questions I don't know either, but they are interesting.

The originally wanted to do the Matrix films, but the studio wouldn't do it until they 'established' themselves and proved themselves capable. So they made 'Bound' first.

_http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/10/120910fa_fact_hemon

The blockbuster-film producer Dino De Laurentiis optioned the Wachowskis’ next screenplay, “Assassins,” while they were renovating their parents’ house. De Laurentiis entertained them with champagne and lascivious stories about beautiful actresses, and then sold the script to Warner Bros. for five times what he’d paid. According to Lana, substantial revisions by a hired writer removed “all the subtext, the visual metaphors . . . the idea that within our world there are moral pocket universes that operate differently.” When the movie was made, in 1995 (directed by Richard Donner, of “Lethal Weapon” fame, and starring Sylvester Stallone, Antonio Banderas, and Julianne Moore), the Wachowskis tried to get their names taken off the credits but failed. Still, the script earned them a deal with Warner Bros. They finished the work on their parents’ house, quit construction, and became full-time filmmakers.

By 1994, the Wachowskis had completed the first script for the “Matrix” trilogy. They’d had the idea while working on a comic-book proposal. They were thinking, Lana recalled, “about ‘real worlds’ and ‘worlds within worlds’ and the problem of virtual reality in movies, and then it hit us: What if this world was the virtual world?” The trilogy is set in a dystopian future where machines exploit human energy by keeping people perpetually comatose in pods, while placating their minds with a continuous simulated reality called the Matrix. A small group of liberated humans—Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity—fight back, through confrontations with the virtual Agent Smith, and the stark darkness of the machine-controlled world is countered by the feeble light of human solidarity. “When I first read ‘The Matrix,’ ” Mattis told me, “I called them all excited because they’d written a script about Descartes.”

According to Mattis, the Wachowskis were “the hot flavor of the month” when he sent the “Matrix” screenplay out, in 1994. “But then everyone read the script and passed. Nobody got it,” he said. “To this day, I think Warner Bros. bought it half out of the relationship with them and half because they thought something was there.” The brothers had spent two years writing the script, and they insisted on directing the movie. To prove themselves, they took on a smaller project first: “Bound,” with Gina Gershon, Jennifer Tilly, and Joe Pantoliano, a lesbian thriller with a happy ending. “Bound” convinced Warner Bros.
 
Serendipity said:
Buddy said:
At any rate, would the answers to those questions really change anything? I'm just curious.
I didn't say it would change anything globally or anything like that, if that's what you meant.
IMO, answer to any question changes the understanding of the person who asks the question and adds to his/her knowledge and awareness, OSIT. And knowledge protects.
.
EmmeYa said:
Buddy said:
At any rate, would the answers to those questions really change anything? I'm just curious.

Yes, I think it would - for people who wanna know the truth.

OK, I think I was just wondering if there was an angle that hadn't occurred to me yet. Currently, the only measures of change I have to guide my hunt for answers to similar questions are "who benefits, at whose expense, and what is the payoff?"

Thanks for the input.
 
There is another who has claims to "The Matrix", Sophia Stewart. Here is some info. Despite the origin confusion, The Matrix is one of my favorite movies. Every time I re-watch it, I discover new information that I missed before and realize 'The Matrix', exists on many levels.

Sophia Stewart: Matrix, Terminator Author Battles On

n what continues to loom as one of the biggest criminal copyright infringement cases in the history of Hollywood, a lone African American woman is fighting the battle of her life against those who would ultimately take credit for blockbuster movie franchises, Terminator and Matrix. Sophia Stewart, a divorced mother of two, Tasha and Paris. and displaced New Yorker now residing in Las Vegas, is in an epochal legal battle with the famed Wachowski brothers (Andy and Larry) from Chicago, two carpenters/Marvel comic book writers who dropped out of college to pursue careers as Hollywood filmmakers. According to Ms. Stewart, an articulate if enigmatic writer turned litigant — the Wachowski brothers stole her script for a science fiction screenplay and turned it into the mega hit that we know today as the Matrix (1999) which racked up billions worldwide.

The rest of the story can be found here:
_http://www.celestebateman.com/Africulture/2012/07/26/sophia-stewart-matrix-terminator-writer-battles-on/
 
1peacelover said:
There is another who has claims to "The Matrix", Sophia Stewart. Here is some info. Despite the origin confusion, The Matrix is one of my favorite movies. Every time I re-watch it, I discover new information that I missed before and realize 'The Matrix', exists on many levels.

Sophia Stewart: Matrix, Terminator Author Battles On

n what continues to loom as one of the biggest criminal copyright infringement cases in the history of Hollywood, a lone African American woman is fighting the battle of her life against those who would ultimately take credit for blockbuster movie franchises, Terminator and Matrix. Sophia Stewart, a divorced mother of two, Tasha and Paris. and displaced New Yorker now residing in Las Vegas, is in an epochal legal battle with the famed Wachowski brothers (Andy and Larry) from Chicago, two carpenters/Marvel comic book writers who dropped out of college to pursue careers as Hollywood filmmakers. According to Ms. Stewart, an articulate if enigmatic writer turned litigant — the Wachowski brothers stole her script for a science fiction screenplay and turned it into the mega hit that we know today as the Matrix (1999) which racked up billions worldwide.

The rest of the story can be found here:
_http://www.celestebateman.com/Africulture/2012/07/26/sophia-stewart-matrix-terminator-writer-battles-on/

There's a short discussion on Ms. Stewart here: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=23445.0
 
Serendipity said:
I have a question.

As we know, "Matrix" is loaded with esoteric symbolism and "V for vendetta" with information about pathocracy.
If PTB didn't want something to get published it wouldn't and same would be true for the opposite, OSIT.

The fact that both movies were quite expensive and very well aesthetically done suggest that the PTB had their fingers in it, or so it seems.
And the accuracy of the symbolism of objective reality and deep thruths rule out the possibility of it being the coincidence, or done by someone without good knowledge of objective reality.

So, what I'm get here at is; it seems like both of these 2 movies were allowed to be published because someone with knowledge wanted it to happen. But who and why?
Could it be that PTB had nothing to do with it?

I just ask these questions because I haven't seen them being asked before that I know of.

I just watched the Matrix again, a great movie. I was reading through this thread and this comment caught my eye. I don't really know for sure if the movie slipped through the cracks or if it was meant to be shown from the angle of the PTB. It made a lot of money and it could simply be that it was a good story that Times Warner took a chance on making big bucks, a good bet it turns out.

At the same time the media is so constructed and premeditated, it would be too suspicious if there was no insight coming out from it at all. Its always going to be a good argument to the contrary that a skeptic could use against a claim the whole movie and media industry is completely controlled, they could just say "why then would they let movies like The Matrix and V for Vendetor come out as blockbusters?" So if we entertained that the Matrix was meant to be seen, it wouldn't be unbelievable I feel. The whole reason the Matrix existed in the movie was to make the illusion believable enough that we could accept it and stay as enslaved batteries. In a similar way, we are much more easily controlled while we believe we are the ones in control, while we believe our news and our media are at least somewhat faithful to the truth of things.

For me its like Orwell's 1984, its almost too revealing but the catch is the conclusion, like the conclusion of the Matrix trilogy too. In both we are taken through a journey of real insight into the inmer workings of this control system and the enslavement we find ourselves in, but in the end the system / the matrix still stands. Its as if the message is that its too big and that in the end we are powerless to resist - that's probably what we are meant to be left with.

But I'm left with this thought - if that conjecture is correct, it appears how much control of our news and media we are willing to accept is becoming narrower and narrower, which means more truth needs to be injected into it to keep up the facade. It points to a losing battle for control as the general awareness heightens. Either that or my wishful thinking is getting the better of me!
 
alkhemst said:
For me its like Orwell's 1984, its almost too revealing but the catch is the conclusion, like the conclusion of the Matrix trilogy too. In both we are taken through a journey of real insight into the inmer workings of this control system and the enslavement we find ourselves in, but in the end the system / the matrix still stands. Its as if the message is that its too big and that in the end we are powerless to resist - that's probably what we are meant to be left with.

I just re-read 1984 and had similar thoughts. I was quite disappointed reaching the end (didn't remember it).

alkhemst said:
But I'm left with this thought - if that conjecture is correct, it appears how much control of our news and media we are willing to accept is becoming narrower and narrower, which means more truth needs to be injected into it to keep up the facade. It points to a losing battle for control as the general awareness heightens. Either that or my wishful thinking is getting the better of me!

I was also rereading my postings above of a year ago, but now, you know, I am thinking: Who of all the millions of people who saw the movie and read the book really are so much taken in by them that it actually really changes their complete thinking? One might watch the movie, read the book and be absolutely fascinated for a couple of days - but then all this other stuff kicks in: problems at work, children at school, grandmother in the attic ... Who is indeed following through? And for these few - the powerlessness does the rest ...

M.T.
Edit: I am writing this in a cafe and the man reading at the next table just got up and said to me, sighing: "Well, back to the real world" :P
 
I don't think it is true, that they can stop anything they want - I'm quite certain they think that they can though.
And if you look at the Matrix plot, it deals with one thing only - total control isn't possible.
Something always slips through the cracks. When Neo visits the Architect, the Architect tells him
that it's the sixth version of the Matrix, and that he has been unable to get rid of the anomaly (The One).

The way I see matrix is that it's a collective lesson on coexistence. Platonicy doesn't work, any modeled reallity won't work.
In the Animatrix, we first see humans programing machines to do their bidding. And then in the first Matrix movie you see the reversal.
The machines have taken control and are now programing humans. By the end of the third movie they stop fighting and see that they
need each other.

Neo as a positive force, Smith as a negative, and the machine leader as a neutralizing force.
Also Neo and Smith fight in a bubble that is reminiscent of a ying yang symbol.
 
Minas Tirith said:
I was also rereading my postings above of a year ago, but now, you know, I am thinking: Who of all the millions of people who saw the movie and read the book really are so much taken in by them that it actually really changes their complete thinking? One might watch the movie, read the book and be absolutely fascinated for a couple of days - but then all this other stuff kicks in: problems at work, children at school, grandmother in the attic ... Who is indeed following through? And for these few - the powerlessness does the rest ...

I've heard before that movies like this are basically a public notice. You give the public a straightforward analogy of what's going on, and while the public do basically nothing with it, while we continue to pay our taxes, while we continue to consume the junk food and junk information that's fed us, its a verification that we consent to it all and a justification that we require management and authority at the same time.

I don't believe however a central control exists, a select few who pull all the strings, I feel that belief is part of the illusion that makes us imagine its all too big, its all to hard and its better to just play along. But I'd say on the other hand that control is definitely all pervasive. Its that way not unlike a matrix, because the system that allows for our control is all around us and more importantly in us. Its in our architecture and built environments, our law, our language, our education, our constructed history, our media etc. etc. But what holds it all together like glue ultimately is how its in our thinking, in our beliefs, in how we feel in relation to the world, the universe and even the divine.

Minas Tirith said:
M.T.
Edit: I am writing this in a cafe and the man reading at the next table just got up and said to me, sighing: "Well, back to the real world" :P

Well, there's no accidents :)

Anthony said:
I don't think it is true, that they can stop anything they want - I'm quite certain they think that they can though.
And if you look at the Matrix plot, it deals with one thing only - total control isn't possible.
Something always slips through the cracks. When Neo visits the Architect, the Architect tells him
that it's the sixth version of the Matrix, and that he has been unable to get rid of the anomaly (The One).

The way I see matrix is that it's a collective lesson on coexistence. Platonicy doesn't work, any modeled reallity won't work.
In the Animatrix, we first see humans programing machines to do their bidding. And then in the first Matrix movie you see the reversal.
The machines have taken control and are now programing humans. By the end of the third movie they stop fighting and see that they
need each other.

Neo as a positive force, Smith as a negative, and the machine leader as a neutralizing force.
Also Neo and Smith fight in a bubble that is reminiscent of a ying yang symbol.

Maybe you are right. But if i imagine this was a movie that a psychopath hands to me, then later says "you see, we need to balance good and evil forces to have peace. Now that makes you the problem, you are the one not willing to compromise your values, you are the one who does not accept acts of evil. That makes you the one who does not allow for peace to occur via balance, that makes you the one who is evil". The manipulation would be obvious to me, its the one often promoted in new age concepts too. I might question in return: "does that mean kids need to have evil acts perpetuated on them to become balanced adults?" They might say yes (well they are psychopathic), but clearly no loving parent could do such things, and the evidence of children harmed shows the immense difficulties emotional harm presents, the complete opposite of assisting growth and maturity of balanced individuals.
 
Back
Top Bottom