In response to Katy's "Dialectics" post about adversity vs. prosperity and how the delicate balance between them makes neither seem as attractive as the combination of the two.
You raise an interesting point when saying that prosperity isn't necessarily what people strive for, but more so the attaining of prosperity. It's interesting to see that people sometimes even prefer to face adversity just to be able to claim its victory after overcoming it. The thought of this makes me think of the phrase "take the high road" or "take the road less travelled," knowing that the reward at the end will justify any suffering that may have been incurred in the process. It sounds nice and noble to think this way, but when you consider your other option, sitting in comfortable content, it makes you wonder why anyone would ever choose adversity. That is until you have something like the movie the Matrix to show us that no matter the circumstances, people will always be able to find discontent and unhappiness, despite the fact that something deliberately tried to eliminate these from life. It may be that people are naturally inclined to seek dissatisfaction, but for what reason is the important question raised. Is it that we're prone to misery, and can't accept a life of guaranteed prosperity, or is it that we prefer to know our troubles well and overcome them naturally to achieve our deserved prosperity? I'd like to believe the latter, but nonetheless, it is interesting to see this dynamic of adversity and prosperity, and how they dually affect people in a (hopefully) symbiotic way
In response to Matthew's "Inconvenient Truth" detailing how the United States' (particularly charitable organizations like Invisible Children) intervention in crises in Central Africa is seen as western imperialism meddling in African affairs to some, while it comes off as completely justified and the right thing to do in other people's eyes
For starters, it's always interesting to see the many shades and lenses different people have for viewing the world and global affairs; what's charity for some is just short of aggression to others. That being said, when there are such opposing view like those brought up on polarized sides of the world, I usually find that the real story, or the most accurate way to perceive a situation is to find the shade of grey. In this case, we'd have be able to see that the actions taken by Invisible Children may seem a little intrusive to proud Central Africans who know the West's history of trying to control their affairs. While our motives have drastically shifted, from the land-grabbing brutes from 150 years ago, to upstanders for human rights, the fact is we are deliberately engaging in foreign matter that doesn't directly concern us as a country. That being said, the Africans should realize our shift and discern a helping (or maybe just concerned) hand from imperialism. Is it our duty to introduce our American muscles into an African conflict? Absolutely not. It would seem far worse, however, if we recognized a problem and stood idly by when we knew we could at least attempt to help stop it. Of course, I have a sort of skewed perspective myself, it would seem rude and un-called-for if the French all of a sudden decided to give every homeless person in America $100. So is it better to respect their nationalistic beliefs, or protect what we view as international human rights? The fact that the two are even confused sure is inconvenient, but from the outsider's point of view (seeing as I myself am in no position to make any executive decisions on the matter) I guess I can appreciate the fact that to make an informed and considerate decision, we have to be able to acknowledge the other sides point of view, and respect it to the extent that it needs to be respected. So maybe a few less 30 minute short films would help our cause, but with or without them, I suppose our first priority is always to do what's right. So long as it is right...
May 13, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
Dialectics: Man vs. Machine
Throughout the course of history it seems like it's always been man's natural tendency to build machines to make life easier. for the most part, man has succeeded in doing just that with inventions that make the basic needs of life (food, water, shelter, etc.) much easier to attain, and at a progressively higher value. This seems all fine and dandy, but the Matrix illustrates what happens when man's machines become advanced enough to turn the tables, becoming the builders of man, and blurring the line that distinguishes the two from one another.
As technology advances, humans have progressively relied on its benefits and found it more of a necessary component of life than ever before. The Matrix shows that, while the humans built artificially intelligent machines, it was these machines that built the Matrix itself, and they clearly dominate it when inside. To contend with, and even survive in the Matrix, Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus require special skills and abilities that are downloaded into the through a computer program, not learned and developed over time through skill and practice (the 'ol fashion way). Man becomes increasingly dependent on machines, so much so that they need them just to survive against other machines they've built. Meanwhile, machines gain their independence and seek out humans only to sever their last ties to their original creators.
The sentient machines are driven by the last threat the humans have over them: the power to shut them down. The search for the "free" humans (Neo, Trinity, Morpheus & Co.), both in the Matrix and outside of it is fueled by the knowledge that Morpheus has the access codes that threaten the existence and power of the machines; the last remnants of the original human-machine relationship, where machines were subservient to their creators. Each "race" wields some sort of power of the other, forcing them into the sort of deadlock we see in the film, but it's questionable as to who has the upper hand in this fight, and what the success of one side means for the other. As their interdependencies flourish, their similarities also seem to become more noticeable, making it seem like, while man and machine have reached the point of trying to destroy each other, they also exist inside of each other more so than ever before.
Almost all of the humans in the movie have some sort of plug in their head that connects them to the Matrix, but also gives off the impression that they themselves are machinelike, and require a physical connection to computers to exist in the Matrix. Beyond the robotic hardware in their bodies, humans like Neo and Morpheus don sunglasses and sleek black clothing, concealing their human characteristics and making them look more like their mechanized opponents.
The machines also steal from their opponents' image, appearing as "agents" who blend in with the humans in the Matrix. Due to how advanced these machines are, they've even adopted aspects of human emotion, especially evident in Agent Smith's speech to Morpheus detailing his hatred for the Matrix. Using passionate and emotion charged words, Agent Smith seems more like a human than Morpheus does at this point, making it difficult for an outsider to tell which one is which.
By taking a closer look at the current and projected relationship of man and machine, the film begs the question, "can one really exist without the other?" The humans have become so reliant on machine service, will they ever be able to go back to life without it? And the machines are still owned by their master (humans), but for how much longer? Is it actually possible for the creator to be enslaved by his own creation, or will the original master-servant roles always exist in some form? Fortunately, the film suggest the latter; Neo eventually gains the ability to defeat the Agents with ease, and at the end of the movie he explains how he has faith in people's ability to rise up against their mechanized oppressors. It does make you question if this world will have a different outcome though; how long will it be instead of giving us directions on where we're going, our iPhones give us directions on what we're doing. It's sort of frightening to think about, but like Neo, I guess I have faith in humans' ability to exist without machines. It's an interesting point in history when we have to consider building less intelligent machines, because threats like the Matrix are becoming all too possible. That's just science fiction though. (Right?)
May 6, 2012
As technology advances, humans have progressively relied on its benefits and found it more of a necessary component of life than ever before. The Matrix shows that, while the humans built artificially intelligent machines, it was these machines that built the Matrix itself, and they clearly dominate it when inside. To contend with, and even survive in the Matrix, Neo, Trinity, and Morpheus require special skills and abilities that are downloaded into the through a computer program, not learned and developed over time through skill and practice (the 'ol fashion way). Man becomes increasingly dependent on machines, so much so that they need them just to survive against other machines they've built. Meanwhile, machines gain their independence and seek out humans only to sever their last ties to their original creators.
The sentient machines are driven by the last threat the humans have over them: the power to shut them down. The search for the "free" humans (Neo, Trinity, Morpheus & Co.), both in the Matrix and outside of it is fueled by the knowledge that Morpheus has the access codes that threaten the existence and power of the machines; the last remnants of the original human-machine relationship, where machines were subservient to their creators. Each "race" wields some sort of power of the other, forcing them into the sort of deadlock we see in the film, but it's questionable as to who has the upper hand in this fight, and what the success of one side means for the other. As their interdependencies flourish, their similarities also seem to become more noticeable, making it seem like, while man and machine have reached the point of trying to destroy each other, they also exist inside of each other more so than ever before.
Almost all of the humans in the movie have some sort of plug in their head that connects them to the Matrix, but also gives off the impression that they themselves are machinelike, and require a physical connection to computers to exist in the Matrix. Beyond the robotic hardware in their bodies, humans like Neo and Morpheus don sunglasses and sleek black clothing, concealing their human characteristics and making them look more like their mechanized opponents.
The machines also steal from their opponents' image, appearing as "agents" who blend in with the humans in the Matrix. Due to how advanced these machines are, they've even adopted aspects of human emotion, especially evident in Agent Smith's speech to Morpheus detailing his hatred for the Matrix. Using passionate and emotion charged words, Agent Smith seems more like a human than Morpheus does at this point, making it difficult for an outsider to tell which one is which.
By taking a closer look at the current and projected relationship of man and machine, the film begs the question, "can one really exist without the other?" The humans have become so reliant on machine service, will they ever be able to go back to life without it? And the machines are still owned by their master (humans), but for how much longer? Is it actually possible for the creator to be enslaved by his own creation, or will the original master-servant roles always exist in some form? Fortunately, the film suggest the latter; Neo eventually gains the ability to defeat the Agents with ease, and at the end of the movie he explains how he has faith in people's ability to rise up against their mechanized oppressors. It does make you question if this world will have a different outcome though; how long will it be instead of giving us directions on where we're going, our iPhones give us directions on what we're doing. It's sort of frightening to think about, but like Neo, I guess I have faith in humans' ability to exist without machines. It's an interesting point in history when we have to consider building less intelligent machines, because threats like the Matrix are becoming all too possible. That's just science fiction though. (Right?)
May 6, 2012
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)