Apocalyptic Thoughts

crimson

It is hard not to think about the end of days with all that is going on. Just over a year ago, in the United States, there was an attempted coup. Just over a month ago, something similar happened here in Canada, in the guise of a protest in the capital. And then, hot on the heels, Russia invades Ukraine. Couple all this with a global pandemic and also the climate change crisis, both which have taken a back seat to these various more exciting events. It is like the world is out to get the human race, in some sense.

I have to acknowledge here that several of the things I’ve raised as being significant events are really only significant to people in my region of the world. The events of the United States and Canada are of particular interest to citizens of the United States and Canada, and not necessarily to others in the world. If an insurrection occurs in the Western countries, does anyone in China really worry about it? I truly cannot say; I do not live in those areas, nor do I know what those citizens think about. So, it might be more accurate to suggest that these thoughts that I am having are particular to my situation.

That in mind, it seems to me that the occurrences that ought to be getting the greatest amount of attention are those which truly affect the greatest number of humans. In other words, a global pandemic and the climate change crisis. Of those, the pandemic is not necessarily an extinction level event. Even if the virus happened to kill people with an efficiency unheard of, there would still be those who were resistant and even immune to its direct effects. And this particular virus seems to be peaking at around 5 to 10% at most. So a lot of people can and will die as a result of this disease, but far, far from eliminating the entire human species.

This leaves the climate change crisis. Here is an ongoing event that I personally have been aware of since my childhood in the mid 1980s. An early “book report” I did was on the hole in the ozone layer of the Earth, a topic that gets very little attention presently. Climate change affects every single living creature on this planet, not simply the humans. Climate change has been slowly causing catastrophic events to occur with increasing frequency over the past 20 years, at minimum. However, climate change doesn’t affect us all equally or directly. Climate change is the cause of strange and severe weather patterns and other occurrences.

In other words, like the wind, no one sees climate change itself, only the effects it has on the world around us. Do we doubt there is a wind because we cannot see it? It would be lunacy to suggest the wind does not exist; what else is causing all those trees to swing around so violently…

Despite the severity of the climate change crisis (or whatever other name one wishes to give to this ongoing event), it repeatedly gets a back seat to other “more pressing” concerns. It seems it is better to focus on something that might kill a few of us now, than something that will kill all of us later. After all, the thing killing some of us now is doing so right now, and we have barely any time to react. The thing killing us later is doing so later, so we still have time to do something about it, right?

Unfortunately, this is not how this particular event works. As I learned about the ozone layer issue, those choices we make today will manifest in changes to our world in the years to come. A reduction in chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) use today will be reflected in a reduced concentration of CFCs in the upper atmosphere years later. In other words, the choices we make today will not take effect for a while. When looking at climate change in general, the scales of time reflected in the cause/effect relationship are much, much greater.

It is likely too late to “fix” anything at this point. We are seeing the increasingly severe weather patterns presently, and still there are those in power who insist on no budging, claiming that climate change is simply a hoax. Denying the evidence that literally pounds them in their faces. Those who are in the position to possibly do something have instead decided to start wars with neighboring states and focus on economic solutions to the worlds problems.

As a species, we are under the delusion that if we can just do a little more, we can alleviate the situation. The fact is, the answer we need to follow is that we need to do less. We need to curb our activities. We need to reduce the things we do, including reducing the number of children we bring into this world. There are already far too many humans on this planet, and their increased activities simply further perpetuate the problems. The answer is less, not more. We need to change our collective culture to be about doing less.

Unfortunately, those who may heed my warning and attempt the strategy I propose will not survive. Those who have chosen the option to purposefully handicap themselves when faced against those who choose not to handicap themselves. Those who decide that climate change is a hoax, or perhaps they do believe but do not wish to allow it to unfocus them from “more important matters,” will very easily overcome those who believe. This isn’t really all that complicated an equation to see.

What this all distills down to is the very real fact that those who wish to attempt to rectify the situation will always be overwhelmed by those who simply don’t care. In the end, those who wish to sacrifice all of us for their petty interests will always win against those who try to make their impact less in an attempt to “save the world.” And so, unfortunately, as math simply does not lie, in the end, the human race is simply on a slow road to its own demise. And then I have to ask myself, as I’m sure so many already do, whether it is even worth bothering. Why chose to limit myself in a world where no one else seems to be limiting themselves. The end result isn’t going to change.

Domestic Terrorism

crimson

I’ve been struggling for weeks to describe and understand what has been happening in the country I live in, Canada. I live a mere two hours from the capital, where the “Freedom Convoy” has been allegedly protesting vaccine mandates. The convoy made a pit stop in my town on its way nearly a month ago, so I even had the opportunity to see and hear from them directly. My opinion here is not second hand at all.

It is not a protest. As Leah Gazan spelled it out recently through a twitter post, sharing her words from parliament, even the purpose and message touted by this movement is not what it seems to be. There is something deeper and more insidious taking place.

This pandemic has been challenging for me not because there is a new disease on the scene that can dish out severe suffering and death upon large amounts of the human population. It has been challenging because it has forced humans to look at things they have spent decades, centuries, even millennia avoiding and dismissing. Cultural and systemic problems that have been left to fester for ages. Worse yet, those problems have been encouraged.

The problem is of sophistry and rhetoric. It is of people manipulating other people. Those who have the skills and abilities to see and understand have, by and large, been manipulating those who cannot see or understand (or who chose not to) to perform functions and activities that are against the best interests of people, society, and the world as a whole. There are people in this world who seems to simply want to see the world burn.

The problem is the lack of a level playing field. We are not equal. We simply cannot be equal. There are things I am good at, and there are things I am not good at. Similarly, there are things you are good at, and there are things you are not good at. Given a particular situation, I may out perform you, but given a different situation you may out perform me. Neither particular situation suggests that you are better than I am, nor that I am better than you are. However, what should be taken from this knowledge is that we are different, and that there will be times one of us can leverage the situation to our own advantage.

The wealthy are wealthy for three reasons: their skills happen to be focused in an area that is conducive to the accumulation of wealth, they are a part of an inter-generational effort aimed at the generation of wealth, and they are lucky.

The first reason generally flows from the second reason, which in turn follows from the third. Their skills and abilities are conditioned and trained in them from their relatives and ancestors (with varying degrees of success I might add). Their parents understand that to be wealthy requires certain traits, and so their parents train them to develop those traits. Traits like viewing people through the lens of a class system, where not all humans should be treated equally. By convincing them that people who are not wealthy simply choose to be that way. They are definitely not trained to cook or to clean; after all, that is the work of the lesser classes.

The accumulation of wealth generally does not take place all at once, but over time. The more time one has to spend on the accumulation of wealth, the more they are able to do so. As is so often demonstrated in works of fiction, if an individual could be immortal, they could simply place their savings in the most basic financial institutions at virtually the lowest interest rates, and after several hundreds of years, a small amount will have become a large amount. Douglas Adams even jokes about this when suggesting that everyone can afford the insanely expensive restaurant at the end of the universe, because all they needed to do was to put aside mere pennies in their current time to do so.

While there are no immortal humans that I am aware of, there is another sort of immortality that exists to allow for such accumulation of wealth to take place: names. Family names to be precise. Blood lines. When a family works cooperatively over the course of many generations, they are able to save and invest for the future generations. The common term for this is “old money.” If a family has this sort of forethought, it will be important to train their offspring in such a manner to continue the future facing investment.

Finally, there needs to be luck. By luck, I mean that the situation and circumstances these people find themselves in must be such that they are able to continue their long ranged plan. Those in the front lines of war have a rather high risk of injury and death, regardless of their level of wealth. Thus, if one wants to ensure the continuance of their blood line, it would be helpful if they were able to somehow prevent their offspring from being selected to participate in such dangerous activities. Or, if they will be expected to participate, they should be given skills and abilities that allow for them to take jobs that could be a bit further away from all that danger.

Over the years, I’ve learned a lot about luck. Luck, to me, is simply a fancy way of describing how one has leveraged decisions in order to minimize the risk of detriment, and maximized the possibility of benefit. The common phrase of “being in the right place at the right time.” With practice and training, one is actually able to control their own luck, to some degree. I have witnessed this first hand in others, and have even figured out how to do this myself.

The point of all this is simply that those with power and influence and wealth have not gotten to where they are by magic or destiny. They have through hard work, patience, and luck. They have, over many generations, spent their time learning to manipulate and influence others in order to position themselves and their friends in such a way as to preserve their way of life. We have records of this going back to ancient Greece. This is precisely the concern raised by Socrates himself (of the problem of sophistry being used to push agendas without the support of evidence).

The “Freedom Convoy” is a well orchestrated movement created by those of wealth, manipulating those without wealth to push their agendas. What’s most disheartening is that the individuals who have (and continue to) participate in this movement do not realize they’ve been manipulated. They honestly seem to believe they are fighting for their own freedom, when they are in fact fighting for the freedom of the elite. You’d think that being charged criminally, their assets and personal wealth being confiscated, and their lives ruined would be enough to show them this.

It is not a protest at all.

We have a way of describing people who take other people, strap bombs to their chests, and instruct them to walk into heavily populated areas and detonate. The sacrificed individuals are told they will reap the greatest of all rewards in heaven, earning thousands of virgins and an afterlife of bliss.

The “Freedom Convoy” is a terrorist movement.

Understanding Democracy

crimson

I really have no idea what I should think or feel about everything going on. What I do feel is confused and lost. Particularly because I thought I understood what the state of things was. I thought I understood what the majority of people wanted. The “silent majority” as my father used to call them. Now, I’m not so sure.

Let’s start with the basics here; what is democracy? Well, the etymology can help us here. Democracy comes from the greek “dêmos” and “krátos.” “Dêmos” translates to people or citizens, while “krátos” translates to rule or strength. Putting them together, you get an idea of people ruling, or the strength of a community coming from the people. In these modern times, we have the idea of governing by the people or the citizens. That is, it is the people who collectively come together to decide the rules and laws that ought to govern the community as a whole.

So it seems to suggest that in democracy, you have a group of people who somehow come to agreement regarding the ways in which they coexist among one another. This in contrast to other situations where perhaps a small subsection of the group is in charge while the remainder simply submit to the subsection’s authority (oligarchy), or perhaps the subsection is simply a lone individual that everyone else submits to (dictatorship). In a democracy, everyone has a say in how things will be in the community as a whole.

In nations such as the United States or Canada, it is believed that the society is organized as a democracy. In Canada, individuals exercise their freedom by voting representatives, who in turn will vote other representatives, who will ultimately speak on behalf of all the people in Canada. Thus, in some ways it seems like an individual is making decisions while everyone else is expected to submit, but the manner in which the nation is organized, that top level representative has to be re-elected regularly in order to affirm that they are continuing to appropriately represent the people who elected them. In this way, it is understood that the representatives are always working in the interests of the people as a whole.

It is true that from time to time there will be representatives who abuse the power they are given by the people they are meant to represent. Sometimes with malicious intent. But that is supposed to be the exception, and not the rule. In general, representatives try to actually represent their constituents and further the constituents’ projects. But how can we be sure?

This is where an aspect of democracy is uncovered that I believe is not always recognized, especially by the very same people who are claiming to support democracy. In any democracy, there are many people with many differing opinions and ideas regarding how things should be done. There are many different projects that will be proposed, all with different priorities and different levels of importance. If I represent 100 people, then I have to somehow decide which of the 100 projects they all wish me to progress to actualize. I may be able to push forward several projects, but it is unlikely I can actualize all 100. Multiply this issue to the size of Canada, where there are about 38 million people, with 38 million different projects and ideas about what should be done.

Almost certainly you know how such things are decided: the majority rules. That is, those participants in the democratic process come together to vote on which projects ought to be undertaken. Those projects who have the greatest support are actualized. Those projects that are not supported sufficiently are not. If one person in 38 million wishes a particular project be undertaken, while the remainder do not, clearly the democratic group will decide against following through with such a project.

In these situations, where a minority of the population wishes a particular project be undertaken and are defeated by a vote from the majority, what ought the minority do? As one who often finds himself among the minority, it is my understanding that I have to simply suck it up and move on. That is, my desired projects are not to be undertaken. I may spend some time trying to convince others to take up my projects. I can use strategies such as protest to increase the awareness of my desired projects, utilizing appeals to emotion to try and sway others. But if, in the end, those who support my projects still only represent a minority, ultimately, I need to simply let it go and move on.

This is how I necessarily must behave. If I support the idea of democracy, I have to accept the fact that I will not always get what I want. In fact, as I am a part of a rather large community, it is very likely that I will rarely get what I want. Most of the time, I will have to simply accept the opinions of others and go along with them. As a single individual among millions, my opinions and desires do not count for very much.

This brings me to this whole “freedom convoy” business. The challenge I am having presently is that it is my understanding that the individuals who are participating in this so-called protest are representing a minority of the whole population. For example, their alleged primary point of concern is that they are against vaccine mandates, especially for truckers who are primarily responsible for maintaining the supply chains between Canada and the United States. If the information I have uncovered is to be believed, upwards of 90% of those truckers are fully vaccinated and continuing to (try to) do their jobs. Thus, the protesters, assuming they represent those truckers who do not support the vaccine mandate, are representing about 10% of the truckers in question. Basic math tells us that 10% is much, much less than 90%, and thus constitutes a minority.

Don’t get me wrong. As they represent a minority, within the laws and rules we have set out in our democratic society, they are definitely entitled to protest and attempt to sway to their side those who presently do not agree with them. The problem is that they have long since already made this point and presented their case (or at least had the opportunity to). So why are they still “protesting?” Worse, why have they escalated their “protest” to include further disruption of the very same supply chain that they claim the vaccine mandates are distrupting?

As anyone who has been following this story should already be aware, this “freedom convoy” is clearly about much, much more than simply vaccine mandates for truckers. In fact, it seems like the movement itself is distracted with hundreds, and possibly thousands, of other intentions and projects. When these “protesters” are waving American confederate flags, nazi flags, and banners supporting their desired candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election, putting aside my level of agreement or disagreement with them, this tells me that their intentions are far more diverse than simply concerns about vaccinating truckers.

This is where I would like to point out what I’ve been talking about regarding democracy and about accepting the decisions of the majority. In this case, it seems to me, the majority of people in Canada support vaccine mandates. It seems to me that the majority of Canadians recognize the significance of supporting their healthcare system in trying to keep as many people safe as possible during a pandemic. It seems to be that the majority support the idea that a vaccine mandate is probably a good thing. The “freedom convoy” has made their point, and they’ve presented their side of this issue. Why the hell are they still at it? And why are they escalating their disruptive behavior? Are they not actually in support of democracy, in contradiction to what they seem to be shouting about?

Many of them suggest their primary interest is in “freedom.” But who’s freedom? They are disrupting the freedoms of all sorts of other individuals with their actions. They are disrupting the supply chains and making it far more challenging for the rest of Canadians to go about their lives. I can promise that those who’s lives have been disrupted do not believe their freedom is being supported; I imagine they believe their freedom is being striped and infringed upon. Is it the “freedom” of the “protesters” that the “protesters” are concerned about? Once again, this will represent a minority, and once again this ought to be dropped.

I do NOT support the “freedom” of the “protesters” whatsoever, primarily as they have outright dismissed and attempted to crush my own. I support the authorities in doing whatever actions they deem necessary to put an end to this ridiculousness and allow the majority of Canadians to attempt to return to some semblance of normalcy.

The Freedom Convoy

crimson

About a week ago, my sister had her birthday. I called her, as a brother ought to do, to wish her well. She’s been having a rough go of it. She is depressed. And she is angry. But the precise nature of her anger was not immediately clear to me.

She had asked me about the latest Matrix film, and what I thought about it. I didn’t get much opportunity to express my feelings when she entered into a strange rant. She expressed great concern regarding the film, and how the creator was projecting their trans culture stereotypes upon the audience (these are her words, not mine). I asked her whether she’d seen the film (because before her rant, she suggested she had not), and she confirmed for me that she had not seen the film. My confusion began here.

I could not understand how she could have developed such a passionate, and critical, view without having seen the film. She indicated to me that she had read the reviews, and apparently that was enough for her to hold her incredibly scathing viewpoint. Having seen the film myself, I tried to argue that the film (at least from my viewpoint) was nothing of the sort. She refused to listen, moving the conversation elsewhere.

She started talking about how mass media was entirely untrustworthy. My viewpoint is complex in this regard, though I might sum it up by suggesting that all mass media needs to be taken with a grain of salt. That is, I believe that all mass media is biased and selectively presented, and so one ought to be critical in assessing anything presented before adopting the information into their world view. Not outright dismissal or rejection. Instead, I think one ought to think about it a bit before simply accepting what is presented. My sister’s perspective seemed to be strongly in favor of outright dismissal and contempt.

It was a difficult conversation. It was her birthday, and I wanted to be giving and compassionate and let her have her moment. But the whole conversation was steeped deeply in controversy, bigotry, and hate. While my sister has never been an angel, this was far more extreme than I had ever heard her talk.

She and my friends told me about a convoy travelling across Canada, from Alberta to Ontario. The convoy was a protest against vaccine mandates for truckers crossing the US/Canada border. Unfortunately, the convoy’s protesting mandate seemed to change significantly during the course of their journey.

Of interest to me, and to this post, were many of the expressed opinions of the participants of the convoy. Many seemed to be talking much as my sister had been talking. They expressed a hatred of mass media channels, becoming openly hostile to the news agents who were themselves simply recording these people for the media outlets. There were even a few individuals who suggested they hoped the convoy protest would result in something similar to the January 6 insurrection in the United States a year ago. So far, this has not been the case, but there is certainly still time for such things to develop if the will is there.

I’m not going to go into great detail regarding the convoy or its protest, nor much more into my sister’s ranting, but I think it is important to notice that this is happening at all. People are clearly tired of the pandemic, and they have become agitated. They seem to be looking for someone or something to blame for the various concerns they have, and without a clear target, they have started selecting targets they probably already felt rather strongly about at the outset.

The concern I wish to express here is that for all these people, their expressions are all outward facing. Their hate and vitriol is directed outside themselves toward whatever they can find outside themselves. Knowing my sister as well as I do, this has been a common trend in her life for as long as I can remember. I also know about this issue rather well, as it was my own viewpoint for a long time in my own youth.

I am reminded of a friend of mine who’s entire family has a strange relationship with luck. They are all very lucky people, constantly encountering situations of good fortune seemingly regularly. I spent years trying to understand what it was and how it worked. And after decades, I believed I had cracked that particular mystery. As it turned out, it related back to things my father had said to me in my youth.

My father taught me fear. He taught me to fear the world around me, and to make a concerted effort to avoid risk at all costs. I was paralyzed from travelling outside my home town for the longest time. Leaving the country wasn’t even a thought for me. When I dated a woman who really wanted me to travel with her, I had no idea what to do.

I did eventually learn to travel. My current partner has been instrumental in this regard. However, it is why I refused for so long that was the interesting part. And this is where understanding luck came in. Luck, for me, is about controlling one’s situation (thinking about Simone de Beauvoir’s understanding of situation). As a human, I don’t have a lot that I can control of this world, but what little I can control, I use to manage my risk through my circumstances.

Following from my father, I can control risk in my life by avoiding putting myself into situations that increase the probability of something bad happening. Like avoiding the “bad part of town.” The problem I encountered as a result of this was that I started avoiding everything. While this succeeded in reducing my risk of getting into trouble, it also had the side effect of reducing the opportunities for happiness. I was leading a rather boring and sad life up to that point.

This is about me. This is about me making choices and being accountable to myself for those choices. I may not control a lot in this world, but there are a few things I can control. I can control my body, and how I move my limbs. I can control where I walk to or drive to, choosing what locations I will be on this planet. I can control the words that come out of my mouth when I speak, and I can control the tone of my own voice at the same time. I can control the expressions of my face and my body. These are just some of the things within my control, and if it is not clear, just these things can have a very, very significant impact on the sort of world I live in and the life I will have.

What I have learned over the years is that I am personally responsible for far more than I might have originally believed. I contribute to the nature of this world. I decide, through my choices, how this world will be. In a fashion similar to how I can vote a particular government into power in a democracy. I am a part of this world. And I also choose how I will react to the world as time passes. I can decide if a particular event should be seen as positive (being optimistic) or as negative (being pessimistic).

When I started taking responsibility for my choices and actions in the world, my world improved. A lot. Much more than I had thought initially it would. There is a reason I finally finished a degree at a university, and why I now have the most amazing partner anyone could ever wish for. Why my life has improved so much from when I was young, despite the challenges I faced in my youth. It has been me. It has always been me.

My sister, unfortunately, is stuck in a rut (again, her own words). It is a rut of her own making. Through the choices and decisions she herself has made over the years, she has created an incredibly deep and treacherous groove that each passing year becomes that much harder to leave. She is angry because of events from her past, from her youth. I admit, I am not her, so I cannot speak to the level of severity of those events. I’m sure many were exceedingly traumatic. All I can say is that I have had my own traumatic events (including having been raped).

The point is not to dwell on those past events. Yes, they certainly shape us. I would not be who I am were it not for all those past events. Especially the traumatic ones. But I was also able to eventually claw my way out of my own rut. It took a while (years), but I eventually found my way out. And I have to keep myself out, because I find myself digging new ruts all the time as well. It isn’t easy. Struggle and sacrifice are not easy. But they really can’t be easy either.

Life is about effort. The more effort I put into it, the more I get out of it. This is what I’ve learned. This is how I try to approach everything. When I watch a film, like The Matrix Resurrections, I don’t expect the film to take care of me; I enter into it with the expectation that I’m going to have to put in some effort to get something out of it. And I did get something out of that film. It was not a waste of time. I do not feel like the creators were projecting some insidious agenda upon me. I see the commentary, but I see it simply as commentary alongside so much other commentary. The film is much larger than simply that.

The pandemic has been challenging for everyone. Each of us having to deal with it in our own unique ways. Admittedly, I think that anyone who was challenged in life before the beginning of this pandemic is finding their challenges have risen exponentially. If they were living paycheck to paycheck before, now they are on the brink of bankruptcy. But there is the other side that many seem to have dismissed as well. There are those who were fine before, and are doing even better now. How else did we end up with a space race between billionaires?

I am watching what I can about this “freedom convoy” to see what happens and what it is all about. I agree with a number of people that this event might possibly be significant to history, but I’m more inclined to think it is significant as a gauge of how people are doing at this point in the pandemic. It seems to me that, like my sister, the participants are a group of disenchanted individuals who believe they are also disenfranchised. Individuals who seem to be looking outwardly in order to direct their frustrations and anger. Individuals who cannot see the terrible damage they have already wrought simply driving their gas guzzling vehicles thousands of kilometres to make some sort of point. As my partner has already inquired to me, “don’t they have jobs and responsibilities back home?”

It is my belief that for a lot of people in this world, they need to look inward rather than outward to find the solutions to their various problems. Not that they cannot use help in rectifying their various situations, as we can always all use some help. But an awareness of ourselves and our choices, and how those choices affect our world, would be a good first step toward ending many of our challenges.

I am responsible for my situation. In making better choices for myself, I can adjust the risks in my life and make luck for myself. I would not suggest I ought to reduce risks entirely, but adjust them appropriately in order to continue to offer myself opportunities for happiness and growth. This is the heart of luck, as I see it. To put myself into the right places at the right times. To be open and available to those opportunities.

I am always left with the same question at the end of these sorts of reflections: how do I share my insights with others? Or more generally: how do you make someone understand something they cannot understand? Somehow, through my life’s experiences I figured all this out. And I can tell you about it, as much as I want. But I cannot make you understand. I cannot make you see what I can now see. And, most importantly, I cannot make you want to see at all. As my mother said to me in my youth, “you cannot make anyone do anything.”

That is what this blog is all about. Aside from being a conduit for myself to express my thoughts and ideas, this blog is my attempt at performing that ridiculous function. To somehow make people understand things they don’t understand. But this blog also cannot make anyone want to understand. For that, somehow, people simply have to come here and read, and want to understand. And you, dear reader, I hope are such a person.

I want to write a story

crimson

Today’s post is a casual post. Not so serious.

I want to write a story. A work of fiction. Like a novel, or perhaps simply a short story. I want it to be entertaining and engaging, while at the same time present a fundamental idea that I often tackle. But I just cannot come up with anything solid. Sometimes I think I have something, but the something often sifts through my fingers as I hold onto it, like trying to carry sand in one’s hands.

The Matrix films and story, among all the things that they are, are ultimately a re-imagining of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. The Wachowskis were clearly influenced by many source materials, but seemed to have started with Plato as their foundation. They seemed to have modernized the story, to fit with our modern technologies and modern cultures. Of course, they didn’t stop with that, and introduced many, many other elements. So much so that we ended up with several very entertaining and engaging films. I would like to do something like that.

To be clear, I don’t want to make another Matrix story. I don’t want to use Plato’s allegory as my foundation. And I certainly do not want to end up with a story that sounds like it is in any way related. However, one of the problems I face is that many of my ideas end up orbiting the Matrix story. Perhaps because it clearly has had a great influence on me. Perhaps because the Matrix story delves into so many ideas that it might be inevitable that my ideas will in some way overlap eventually. It almost seems like a fools errand. But I continue to try.

Marilyn Frye, in “To Be And Be Seen: The Politics Of Reality,” uses the analogy of actors and stagehands performing a “dramatic production on a stage” (like a play perhaps) to help her describe the situation of men and women. I think her analogy is spot on, and I’ve even felt that the analogy makes sense in many other situations. I often make my income in the Information Technology (IT) sector, and I feel like a stagehand in those situations, where if I am doing my job properly, no one knows I was ever there. The good IT professional is invisible. If you ever do see the IT professional, or notice what they are doing, then something has gone horribly wrong.

I wouldn’t need to modernize her analogy, nor would I want to diminish its commentary regarding gender inequity. Would it be possible for me to take this as a foundation and build it up into an entertaining and engaging work of fiction to subtly convey this very important idea across to many, many people? I’m not so sure, but I would certainly like to try.

The Matrix story is not the only story of its kind. It is not the first time someone took an older story and built it up into something else. And in many of those cases, the newer story was entertaining and engaging and many people enjoyed the new story, often never knowing the original source(s). There are still many people who are unfamiliar with Plato’s Allegory of The Cave, and yet are intimately familiar with The Matrix. One of the hopeful things about the situation is that the point Plato seemed to be trying to convey is captured (for the most part) by The Matrix. In this way, I consider it to be quite successful.

I guess I just need to keep plugging away at it. Perhaps I simply need to hold my hands a bit tighter, so the sand doesn’t slip through so much. But perhaps more importantly, I need to keep grabbing more sand, to replenish that which has slipped away. I think I just need to keep writing and talking and thinking, and eventually it will come together. I need to not give up.

Fantasy Versus Reality

crimson1 Comment

The other day, I ended up in a dispute with my partner over investment reporting. We have some money invested and when we receive the reports periodically, they may or may not provide information to us about what percent increase (or decrease) has occurred since our initial investment. Our dispute was related to both the availability of such information, as well as its accuracy. She believes the information should always be provided by the agent, and that that information is simple and reliable when presented. I believe the agent ought to offer it, but I recognize the complexity of such information and so I prefer to figure it out for myself.

It is not my intention in this post to go into the finer details and mathematics of calculating this sort of information. What I would like to focus on is the nature of what information the agent would provide. In particular, is such information real (and accurate and reliable) or merely fantasy (as in speculative and largely biased).

When I was younger, I heard someone say, “80 percent of all statistics are made up.” If you didn’t catch it immediately, this is a joke. The idea is that the statement itself is “made up,” and as such, the statistic it is purporting is also “made up.” The statement, ultimately, is entirely useless as it does not actually tell us anything useful. It is merely a joke.

However, there is some truth in this joke. Statistics is the area of mathematics concerned with taking data and analyzing that data to formulate potentially useful conclusions about it. In other words, one takes a large (often very large) pile of information (such as numbers), and they run through the data looking for various common things or different things. One can, for example, find the average of a group of numbers, which will tell them (very approximately) a sort of midpoint in the data set. Other popular midpoint finders include median and mode.

Here is a simple example:

Data Set: 5, 4, 3, 7, 6

Average: 5

In this case, 5 is clearly and easily the midpoint. All the numbers are relatively close in magnitude to 5 (within 2 in the most extreme case). Thus, the average seems to provide something useful in description of the data.

The reason there are many different methods utilized to find the midpoint is that depending on the nature of the data set itself, weird things can happen in the analysis. If within the set of numbers, there is one number that is significantly different, then the average may be pulled far in some direction, providing strange results. Here is another example:

Data Set: 5, 4, 3, 7, 6, 125

Average: 25

In this case, 25 is much less useful as the midpoint. Most of the data is hovering around 5, as demonstrated in the previous example. The single outlier has taken the average and pulled it violently away. The number 25 isn’t very helpful in describing the data anymore, though the result itself is technically accurately describing the average of the data.

Again, it is not my intent to dive into extensive mathematical proofs. But I hope that the simple examples make my point clear. It doesn’t take much to significantly change the results of a data analysis and provide vastly different results. All I did above was add a single new number to the data, and the average changed drastically.

This also leads to the main problem with statistics that most don’t think to consider: why did I choose to use average as my preferred method of analysis, as opposed to median, mode, or something else entirely? As the one performing the analysis, I necessarily have to select my tools and methods to perform my analysis. Which tools I decide to use affect the results, as does what part of the data I decide to utilize.

Selection of what part or parts of the data I will use is also a significant factor to consider. In the second example, clearly the value 125 is very unlike the other values and is having a significant affect on my result. I could simply remove the outlier, claiming it is an outlier and not representative of the rest of the data and then proceed with my analysis (which will result in it appearing the same as the first example). This sort of decision is not uncommon in statistics or science.

In both cases, the decision regarding which tools I utilize and the decision regarding which data I include, I have fulfilled the requirements of statistical analysis. I may be asked to provide good reasons for my choices, but the making of those choices is mine to make. Furthermore, this also places the responsibility upon others to question my choices. If no one questions or challenges my choices, then my results will stand very nicely.

In the argument with my partner, my point was that if the agent will provide us with a rating of the interest our investments accumulated, I would ask for details regarding how that number was attained. Unfortunately, this is not usually made very clear by agents. Often, when I have raised this question, I get pages of statistical analysis that by itself is challenging and time consuming to sort through. I sometimes wonder if they are simply trying to confuse me with large information, in the same way as one confuses by using big words when they talk. Makes them sound more intelligent than they may actually be.

I would also relate this to my anxiety when I observe companies “graciously” offering to shop around on my behalf, ensuring that I get the “lowest price” on an item. Why do those companies compare against the specific other companies that they choose to compare themselves against? Like a commercial which says their product beats the leading brand, and then you see in the fine print that the “leading brand” is simply their own lesser product. By making crafty choices, the companies are rigging the game in their own favor. As a crafty consumer, it is up to me to raise the questions back to them to tease out something of the truth.

Which brings me to the point I was wanting to raise at the beginning. Statistical analysis is a form of fiction. It looks a lot like the truth, but certainly bears some difference. How much difference is highly dependent on the choices made by those performing the analysis. The choices themselves are not objective, they are subjective, forming the foundation of the fiction being generated. They are a form of fantasy.

But most fantasy does have some relationship with the real. The centaur is a mythical creature based on the ideas of a horse and a man merged. Horses and men are real things. In the same way, the results of statistical analysis is a fantasy based on a real thing as well (based of the very real data that has been analyzed). It can sometimes be difficult to remember this fact.

This too, I think, is the source of many simulacra. Science and statistics both provide innumerable examples of these sorts of fictions, which become the basis of other fictions, and so on. If it is forgotten the original source of these things, then they simply become symbols of symbols of symbols…

It is certainly unreasonable for any person to keep track of every single fact in existence. I have to depend on the amalgamated “facts” that come from science and statistics, and other places. I myself have not performed the calculations required to predict the weather, but I still listen to the weatherperson, and I still do plan my day around what they say. In that way, I am adopting a fiction into my list of “facts.” I am accepting a fantasy as part of my reality.

But I try to always remember where my data is coming from. To acknowledge and appreciate that there are likely errors (sometimes significant ones) in my “facts.” To be wary that sometimes those errors have been placed there intentionally by various parties with a vested interest in affecting my choices and decisions. To always be aware that my world is heavily mediated, and that almost everything I know is, in truth, simply a variation of fantasy. As Immanuel Kant suggested in his Critique of Pure Reason, I have no direct connection to the real world.

The Matrix Resurrections and Being Trans

crimson

Yesterday, I was a fool…

It takes time to understand a Matrix film. All of them do. To be perfectly honest, I still uncover and discover things about the original films today. It has been 22 years since the first film was released and I am still discovering things. This is what makes a Matrix film a Matrix film. Reflection and revelation.

No, I’m not trans. This is not me coming out. But in some sense, I am trans as well. What I just realized is what it means to be trans. What it means to affirm your own identity. To claim yourself, despite what the world and others wish you to be. It is about making a choice that really isn’t a choice at all.

My journey has been a long one, and it is by no means over. I expect I will still uncover and discover things about all of the Matrix films 20 years from now. More hidden meanings and hidden messages. Though, the irony is that none of these messages or meanings are hidden at all. They never were. That is what makes these films so brilliant and yet so heartbreaking.

In virtually every human culture, once we are born, we are told who and what we are. On some level, this is necessary. Baby humans cannot survive on their own and require assistance. In most cases, it is their parents who provide that assistance, at least over the first five or so years. Others are often involved as well, such as doctors and other family members. At five (or so, at least in my culture) you are thrust into the system in an official way: you go to school. Kindergarten or maybe Grade 1. You are taught all the things you need to know in order to eventually become a “productive member of society.” You are taught how to properly be who and what you are, as indicated and supported by your birth.

The first 20 years of your life are devastating. I believe this is true for everyone. Whatever you may think or feel must be shaped during this time, and so at any time you try to think or feel things that you are not supposed to think or feel, you are disciplined. You are corrected. You are not supposed to think those things, or feel in those ways. The discipline can be hard. The discipline is often violent. But it needs to be. Otherwise, you might start to think that being yourself is acceptable, and this can put you in serious jeopardy.

Discipline comes from everywhere. Not just your parents. Not just the teachers in school. It comes from your peers as well. The other children that are in the same situation you are in. You learn that if you support the system and help correct others, you are usually rewarded. They say that the best way to learn is to teach.

You are lucky though as well. Before you are declared an adult if you make missteps, the discipline, as hard as it is, is still light in comparison to what it will be as an adult. Becoming an adult changes the game entirely. As an adult, the same missteps can get you killed, quite literally. And some missteps are so severe, you don’t even need to be an adult.

This is the path all humans take. We are told we have free will, but we are never given an opportunity to express it. We are told that once you become an adult, you will get to express it, but by that time it is already far too late. You’ve been indoctrinated into the system. Your identity well established. Who and what you are, as decided at birth, are instinctually programmed. You can not make a free choice, even if you wanted to.

This is a pretty lofty claim. Many who read what I have written will likely find fault with it in some way. The easiest attack is the claim “all humans.” After all, there must certainly be exceptions. I have yet to see one. And in the 46 years of my life that I’ve had to ponder this, I have found no way out. Because I have pondered this all my life. At least as far back as the time I asked my mother where “man” came from. (I am told I asked this question before I was 4.)

The trans situation is the same as this; only there is a focus on particulars. The who and what in this case are sex and gender. Are you a boy or a girl? Will you grow up to be a man or a woman? It is this declaration at birth that decides the path of your conditioning. Are you blue or pink? Do you get a truck or a doll? Do you take Industrial Arts or Home Economics? Which washroom do you enter?

The question I asked during my training was why? Why do I have to have a preferred colour? A preferred toy? A preferred vocation? Should these things not be something I can decide for myself? Exercising my free will? I was told that I was allowed to express myself, but if I chose incorrectly, I was corrected.

I’ve mentioned the beer issue in previous posts, but I think this is the right place to raise it again. I don’t like beer. This is my free will expressing itself. But once I came of age, as I was declared a boy at birth, my dislike of beer was challenged over and over again. Men drink beer, after all. It is a manly thing to do. My friends, my peers, who were sympathetic, made attempts to correct me. One even told me that, “no one likes beer, we all just get used to it.” Is this not precisely the point I’m trying to make?

The part of trans culture that I generally disagree with is that I see people dismissing one side for another. I am not a boy, I’m a girl. I don’t exhibit the traits and features of one category, I exhibit the traits and features of the other. It is the established and confirmed categories that I detest. During my upbringing, I was essentially offered a choice between two pots to pick from. No other options lay before me. Do you like blue? Do you like pink? What if I want to say green?

I know about non-binary. I know about both and neither. And if I were trans, that is where I’d stand. But I detest those categories. I see the depth of their artificiality. I see the depth of their insidiousness. I see how their influence taints the very fabric of our reality. It is why I was so moved when reading “In and Out of Harm’s Way” by Marilyn Frye. The idea of the Arrogant Eye. The idea of oppression.

The largest issue I face with all of this, the point I’ve made in previous posts, is that if I don’t like this system of categories, I ought to offer an alternative. I don’t have one. Or, my suggestion is that there be none. No men. No women. Just people. Just humans. But then I’d also have to establish what sort of training all babies are supposed to get. I’d have to pick and choose the correct colour and toy and vocation. At least, that is what I’m led to believe.

Maybe that too is the point. Maybe the establishment of colour and toy and vocation is itself also part of the problem. The system of conditioning. The training. Maybe it all has to go. But then how would those young humans learn to exist in the world?

We circle back and start to eat our tail at this point. What does the world look like presently? What sorts of skills and abilities work best in this world? What sort of training would be best to offer a young human in order to afford them the greatest success in this modern world? Clearly, the training of boys and girls is most suited to this environment. This is a world of men and women, after all. Even if it is not desirable, this is the world as it stands presently.

An appeal to tradition. We are as we are because we were. Change is slow. Slower the more humans get involved. And there are 7.7 billion humans right now (according to Google). That’s a lot of people. Change is going to be so very slow.

The latest Matrix film has been a roller coaster for me. First fighting for room. I had to defend my position that I didn’t dislike the film. It’s strange to me to have to defend such a position. “How can you not hate this film,” people would scream at me. “This film is a steaming dumpster fire!” Simply not agreeing with them seemed to suggest I was in serious need of discipline. Like when I was younger.

But I did what I always do. I tried to be patient. I talked to people. Especially people who I didn’t agree with. I learned long ago that it is those you don’t agree with that will offer the greatest insights. Even though many of those people seemed to want to crucify me, I knew they could offer me answers that those who agreed with me could not. So I persevered.

I told everyone I would take a break. After about two weeks of going to war each day, I said I’d gotten as much as I could, and I needed time to digest. I think we all did. Time for those who haven’t seen the film an opportunity to see the film. And for those who had, time to think about what they saw. To reflect.

It didn’t take very long. The film was released only 18 days ago. It only took 18 days of discussion and reflection for me to get here. Enough time to realize what this film is. Enough time to now say that this film may be the best of the series. Greater even than the first.

Please do not misunderstand. I fully expect to continue learning and evolving over time. I expect to continue to uncover and discover things related to this film for years to come. But in this moment, I think I understand. I think I understand enough to say, I like this film. Enough to say, this film is amazing.

This film, among all the other things that it is, is a trans story. It is a brief glimpse into the process I described above. It is about how we are told who and what we are, despite anything we may feel inside. The film engages directly with this. So much so that it can be uncomfortable to watch.

But don’t look away because you are uncomfortable. Keep looking. Keep watching. You are supposed to feel uncomfortable. Because it is uncomfortable to be told who and what you are, especially when you feel something else entirely. If the film punches you in the face, it isn’t random and it isn’t with malicious intent. It is with love. It is there to help you. Change hurts. Change is incredibly painful. This film knows this.

Why this film is brilliant is that unlike so many other films (including its predecessors), this film is not afraid. This film isn’t subtle. This film is there getting in your face. Invading your space. Forcing you to deal with everything. Calling you to action. Working you into a frenzy.

This is why there are so many people expressing hatred. This is why those same people cannot help but try to discipline and shame me. The film insults them. The film offends them. The film challenges their very being. There should be absolutely no surprise that some people would have these reactions.

In the last review I watched, just before writing this post, the commentator described this film as beautiful. I agree with him. Like me, he is not trans either. But he did his research, and he watched the film with a Loving Eye. He was patient. He reflected. And I think he is right.

The Matrix Resurrections and A Key

crimson

A part of the issues I am facing with this latest film is trying to justify that I got something out of it that others seem not to. I claim the existence of hidden messages and hidden meanings; I claim this film is somehow “art.” But I haven’t provided satisfactory evidence to back up my claims. I resisted because I had hoped simply telling others that these messages existed would be enough to motivate people to discover them on their own. Unfortunately, I was wrong to think this.

And so, this will be me revealing a key to understanding The Matrix Resurrections. I say “a” key because I’m confident there are other keys out there. This is simply the one I found and used to decode the film with. Huge warning now, that the following includes a shit ton of spoilers!

I will lay out my key as three steps that need to be considered in order to understand the hidden messages. After revealing these keys, I will elaborate in detail.

Step 1: This film is not entertainment. This film serves itself.

Step 2: The dialog spoken by the characters does not originate with those characters. The words and ideas are actually the words and ideas of real people in our very real world.

Step 3: Once you have figured out who actually said what the characters have said, consider what was said in the context of the scene, in the context of the film in its entirety, in the context of the film industry, and in the context of the creators.

If you endure these steps, you will find a ton of messages and ideas that themselves raise their own questions regarding the film and its very existence. Now to elaborate.

In step 1, one needs to start by realizing this film is not for them. That is, many modern films are designed as consumer products. As products, their purpose is to entertain people and provide motivation for people to part with their money. The film industry is, first and foremost, a business. The Matrix Resurrections is challenging this very idea.

As such, in order to actually understand the film, one needs to abandon the idea that the film will entertain the audience. The film might appear to be for their consumption, but it really is not. The film serves its own interests, not the interests of the audience. In other words, do not expect the film to fulfill in the way other films might.

This also raises the next issue: passive versus active. Most modern films, designed for consumption, require very little from the audience (aside from opening their wallets). The audience can enjoy the films very passively. The audience does not need to put forth much effort. This film is not passive; this film is active. This film requires the audience to put in an effort. Any audience who expects the film to serve them will certainly be disappointed.

Properly prepared, we are now ready to enter step 2. In step 2, the audience has to do some work. People have already identified that the dialog issuing forth from the characters is often broken and jilted. There are breaks in continuity. This is because the dialog isn’t necessarily for the scene or the characters. Someone else said these things, or something very similar, outside the scope of the film. The trick is to figure out who said it, and why.

Much of the time, and especially when one is stuck, assume it was Lana herself saying the dialog. If that doesn’t work, try Lilly. Still not working, try others, including Warner Bros. executives, crazy film fanatics, and even film critics. Often, the clues as to whom should be considered are there in the scene itself.

This leads to step 3: analysis. Consider what was said, and by whom, in the context of the scene itself. What does it tell you about the scene? If there are deficiencies in the scene, perhaps this is why; perhaps it is intentional. If the scene doesn’t entirely make sense, this may reveal where the problem exists.

Next, consider what was said in the context of the film as a whole. Perhaps it is telling us why the film was even created in the first place. In the context of film industry, perhaps a commentary is being made regarding the state of affairs of films in general (see my step 1 above). And in the context of the creators, perhaps they are trying to tell us something. Do not assume immediately that it is sarcasm or malicious. Try to be charitable. Try to be empathetic.

At this point, these hidden messages should start to reveal themselves. These hidden messages will tell their own story, not necessarily the same story that appears to have been presented. For me, the story mostly begins by telling me that this is NOT a Matrix film at all.

Now for an example of what I am talking about. The beginning of the film starts very similarly to how the first film in the trilogy started, though with marked differences. As someone else pointed out, after the initial trace sequence, instead of a light being pointed directly at the audience, the light is seen reflected in a pool of water on the ground. This, by itself should alert the audience that this new film, though seeming very similar is being presented from a different perspective than the first.

Before the light, there is a brief conversation between two characters: Bugs and Seq. “Looks like old code,” says Seq. “It feels really familiar,” says Bugs. Already we are being alerted. Perhaps this is a conversation between a Warner Bros. executive and Lana, discussing a draft of the new upcoming film. “A quick peek can’t hurt.” “Bugs, this feels like a trap.” Could this be Lana expressing concern about the draft? Or perhaps even her being dragged into a project she never wanted to be a part of?

We watch the opening sequence unfold, and yet it pales as compared to the first film. The iconic floating kick is strangely absent this time and the choreography is somehow less impressive. Following the scene to its conclusion, we also notice that Trinity does not actually escape this time. Bugs and Seq are there with the audience, watching. “But something is happening here. Something important.” “We know this story. This is how it all began. This is where he began.” The character, Bugs, is talking about Neo. But if these were not Bugs’ words, then “he” would also not be who we think either. “So deja vu and yet it’s obviously all wrong.”

I believe these words are self-referential. Lana and/or Lilly talking about themselves from the beginning. From the time they first created the first film. Before they were “she,” they were “he.” The next line, “Why use old code to mirror something new?” pulls it all together. Perhaps not a complete answer, but the beginning of one. It sounds like someone at Warner Bros. sought out Lana and/or Lilly and presented them with their own take on the Matrix. A draft of a script perhaps. Upon reading it, it awoke something inside them. Reminiscing. Remembering. And then concern. Their story had already been told. It had been concluded, hadn’t it? And this story, the one remembered is somehow inferior to the original as well. Trinity was supposed to have escaped. Trinity was supposed to have got out.

“If that’s supposed to be Trinity, that’s not what happens.”

“Maybe this isn’t the story we think it is.”

“Bugs, you have to get out of here. It’s gotta be a trap.”

I think this opening could be talking about how the initial project that eventually became this film began. How Lana and Lilly were initially drawn back in, someone else wanting to renew the Matrix franchise and tell more story. More likely, in order to try to cash in. The recurring references to it being a “trap” suggest that perhaps whomever actually approached Lana and Lilly may themselves have been naive and didn’t realize what they were doing. Perhaps motivated by a “higher power” (say the Warner Bros. executive team).

But all this is only one possible interpretation as well. Another could be that Lana is talking directly to her audience instead. Perhaps she is telling that audience that the film itself is the trap, and the audience is about to be deceived. A warning perhaps.

The next line is, I believe, the first reference to something: “Shit”. This singular word is strewn throughout the entire film. I don’t think it is ironic. I don’t think it is an accident. I don’t think anyone is trying to be funny. I think “shit” has a very specific meaning in the context of this film. I think “shit” is a representation to the sorts of things that are expected, like in the phrase “the same old shit.” This likely includes such things as the iconic action sequences and “bullet time,” which of course are referenced later in the film.

I will stop here, as my intention is not to decode the entire film. Doing so does the film, the creators, and the audiences all a disservice. I honestly, think I’ve already said too much as it is. However, I cannot assume that most people will be able to see what I see. Some people may need some assistance in the decoding. It is my sincere hope that this little bit is enough to get people started. Perhaps this is enough to convince people to take the time to see what I think this film is all about.

The Matrix Resurrections and Futility

crimson

Out of breath, after screaming into the void for days. Why do I scream? Do I want to be heard? Perhaps not. I already know what they think, what they feel. They’ve made it abundantly clear; they are not like me, I am not like them. I am alien.

The film is instrumentally good. More than that. It is brilliant. Because it was able to invoke such passionate responses in everyone who watched it. Including me. I always felt I was immune, but clearly I am not.

I feel alone. I know there are others out there who saw what I saw. They too scream into the void, and I can hear them. But for some reason we cannot find each other. Perhaps they are just an echo.

Since I was very young, I felt I was different than everyone else. I thought about things no one else seemed to think about. I saw things others said were not there. My own father told me I was not different, and that everyone else thought as I did. I believed him, for a time. But it is difficult to reconcile when the behaviors and words of all these people are so vastly different. If they thought as I thought, and felt as I felt, would then not act as I act?

I suppose they might be. After all, I have remained hidden in the crowd for so long, I look just like everyone else. My mask is so perfect. What if theirs are just as perfect.

I don’t know what to think anymore. I haven’t for a while. This film simply brought it back to the surface. This film reminded me of the hopelessness I see. Perhaps I should not have watched Don’t Look Up right afterward. The futility of screaming.

The Matrix Resurrections and The Arrogant Eye

crimson

There is something I need to say. I believe it is quite important. So important that merely understanding it changes a person. The problem I have is that my aptitude with communication is not as great as I would like it to be. Certainly not sufficient to appropriately convey this thing I need to say. Any attempts I make inevitably lead to misunderstanding and dismissal.

If I try my hardest, there are those who will hear, who will listen. However, those same people already know and understand what I’m trying to convey. In fact, many of those people understand it better than I do. It has been through those people that my own understanding has grown and flourished over the years. So telling them this thing is a bit redundant. Like shouting into a barrel.

Unfortunately, there are many more people who will not listen at all. They may not even be able to hear me, my voice is so small and quiet. But it is those people who need to listen more than anything. It is those people who need to understand the most. I just know that if they grasped this thing for even a moment, they would realize just how important it is.

So it seems my problem is trying to figure out how to make those people listen. Especially when I already understand that I cannot make anyone do anything they don’t already want to do. If they do not want to listen to me, then it will not matter what words I choose or how I try to say what I need to say. My message will fall upon deaf ears.

But it is really important that they know. Important that they understand. At least, that is what I believe. It is in part because I understand that I know it is so important. I truly believe that if they simply understood, they too would recognize its significance.

Perhaps I need to better understand those people. To understand what they do want to listen to. What they want to hear. Perhaps I might be able to speak to them in a way they understand and prefer. Perhaps then I could convey my message. Unfortunately, speaking in their language makes it incredibly difficult to convey this message of mine. Their language isn’t very efficient in expressing this idea. Their language is better suited to expressing different sorts of ideas.

I also have to be very careful when I speak to them. There are words I feel compelled to use that will immediately close them from me. Simple words with so much meaning, but at the same time words that they don’t want to hear. I cannot use those words.

A famous person wrote an amazing essay entitled “In and Out of Harm’s Way.” In this essay, the famous person discusses the idea of “The Arrogant Eye.” A person with this perspective sees the world as they want to see it. Their observations are tainted or coloured by their own desires and feelings. When they interact with the world, they end up trying to dominate that world. After all, the world is a reflection of their making; in some sense they own the world. The problem with this perspective is that it leaves very little room for others to exist in their world. Or, what inevitably must happen, others are subjugated and oppressed in order to make room.

The alternative perspective is referred to as “The Loving Eye.” A person with this perspective sees the world as it is, or perhaps more accurately, they try very hard to see the world as it is, trying very hard not to allow their own desires and feelings to overshadow the world. When they interact with the world, they often try to leave the world undisturbed. They want to allow the world to express itself, in some way. Others that may exist in the world are also encouraged to express themselves. The world is not intended to be a reflection of their making; it is not their world to possess.

These perspectives are not the thing I need to say. They are vehicles to help understand. With art, one can view it with an Arrogant Eye or with a Loving Eye. Inevitably, one will colour the art with their own experience, no matter how hard they try not to. But with the Loving Eye, the person really tries not to. With the Loving Eye, one tries to understand what the creator of the art intended, instead of assuming for themselves the meaning of the piece.

Art is art. And creators are creators. The second the art leaves the creator, it will have of life of its own. The good creators understand this. The good creators will do their best to separate themselves from their art once it has left the nest. But it can still hurt a great deal to watch your art be constantly misunderstood and misinterpreted. The worst, I think, is when your art is labeled as inferior or bad. How can art be bad? If art is an expression made by the creator, then it could only be bad if it was somehow not an expression of the creator.

Unfortunately, none of us can control others. We cannot make them listen. We cannot make them understand. We cannot tell them how to view a piece of art. And we certainly cannot tell them whether a particular piece is good, bad, or otherwise. Everyone will decide for themselves what they think about the piece of art. In fact, they will decide for themselves whether the piece is even art at all. This is yet another problem with language.

I was going to go through The Matrix Resurrections scene by scene and explain what I thought was going on. At this moment, I’ve changed my mind. I watched the film several times, trying to look with a Loving Eye. The things I saw both inspired me and disappointed me. I was inspired because the creator seems to have accomplished the very same thing that they did with the first film: The Matrix Resurrections is rich with symbolism, layers, and hidden messages that will keep people busy for a very long time. However, I was also disappointed because it seemed like many of those messages suggested that the film should not have been created in the first place.

I believe the creator was incredibly reluctant to create this film. When forced against their wishes, they decided to take the opportunity to say something they felt was important. Important to them. And really, I think that too is what is most important.