ACO reflection...
Sébastien Smith
of film one can watch every day and learn elements on real life or ideas to
reflect upon.... And I come upon a reflection concerning Kubrick
himself.... And not so much the picture.....
In much of the film, a strong cynical religious view of the world is
made.... And I was wondering, among you hardcore Kubrick Fans and
connoisseur, how or was Kubrick a very religious man in his private and
social life....
It would seem so looking at his films...... Notably ACO, which I've
mentioned, and more subjectively in 2001....
Does anyone have anything to say about it all ?
In a completely off topic to my post, did all of you see Ambassador
Desadesky subtly laugh when Dr. Strangelove hits himself when he has one of
his memorable spasms ???!!! Quite funny looking at it....! :)
Buenos Dais....
M4RV1N
writes:
>I'm find myself watching (yet again!!!) A Clockwork Orange..... The kind
>of film one can watch every day and learn elements on real life or ideas to
>reflect upon....
That's what great art is about.
> And I come upon a reflection concerning Kubrick
>himself.... And not so much the picture.....
>
>In much of the film, a strong cynical religious view of the world is
>made.... And I was wondering, among you hardcore Kubrick Fans and
>connoisseur, how or was Kubrick a very religious man in his private and
>social life....
No, but you have to understand that Kubrick viewed the fact that the spokesman
for Alex's true nature was a fire and brimstone clergyman as exquisite irony.
Kubrick stated that he was not raised in religion and that he did not believe
in any of earth's monotheistic religions. That last statement was made in the
context of discussing how extraterrestrial intelligence billions of years in
advance of us might be a kind of scientific definition of something godlike.
>It would seem so looking at his films...... Notably ACO, which I've
>mentioned, and more subjectively in 2001....
>
Really, though he uses the metaphors of religion where artistically apt, the
view that Kubrick had of the human race was highly objective and rational.
It's a perspective that made some people quite uncomfortable--in part because
it's so rare.
Mark Ervin
Tobasco
M4RV1N wrote
> Really, though he uses the metaphors of religion where artistically apt,
the
> view that Kubrick had of the human race was highly objective and rational.
> It's a perspective that made some people quite uncomfortable--in part
because
> it's so rare.
>
Define rational. If we're to restrict the meaning of the word to a
dualistic context of reason VS emotion, I suppose a general classification
could be made. However I don't see Kubrick so reduced as an artist, not
ignoring how 'practical and existential' he was in executing the mechanics
of the filmmaking process.
...speaking of executing...
Two scenes:
Barry and Bullingdon ----- Joker and The Sniper.
From the character's POV's does the viewer find a component of the rational
in their actions? We don't really know. While Kubrick provides allusion
and inference cues in a development toward these events , which in no way
disregrds the watertight integrity of the non-submersible units, he does not
provide a defined exposition of motive in either case. Does Barry's firing
into the ground denote a rational course of action? Conversely, is Joker's
act a mercy killing - a non-rational moral act? In either case, Kubrick's
ambiguity, i.e. the denial of an approved interpretation belies an entirely
rational approach to the events.
While Kubrick's chess-logic rationality may have been a predominant trait of
his character, I think we miss much, of both film and director, if we
disregard the transcendant and intuitive in his work.
Tobasco
M4RV1N
writes:
>> Really, though he uses the metaphors of religion where artistically apt,
>the
>> view that Kubrick had of the human race was highly objective and rational.
>> It's a perspective that made some people quite uncomfortable--in part
>because
>> it's so rare.
>Define rational.
What I mean in the instance of how Kubrick viewed humanity is that he was
rational in the sense of having a grasp of the architecture, or the
"engineering," if you will, behind human failings.
> If we're to restrict the meaning of the word to a
>dualistic context of reason VS emotion, I suppose a general classification
>could be made. However I don't see Kubrick so reduced as an artist, not
>not ignoring how 'practical and existential' he was in executing the mechanics
>of the filmmaking process.
Well, I would submit that it's not an act of reduction, per se, to suggest that
an artist makes use of a standpoint which allows for an explanatory framework
of morality, or more precisely for the theoretical proposition of such a
framework. This as opposed to a metaphysical or idealized framework which
begins with the notion of the denial of any explanatory framework.
If Kubrick believed (as I contend he did) that there exists a set of facts,
which if known and admitted to, could be brought to bear in improving the human
condition and preventing the repitition of past immoralities, and he expressed
such ideas in his art, then that's what I would regard as the use of
rationalism in expression.
To give a rather distanced analogy, it's not all that different from da Vinci's
attempt to understand the underlying muscle structures of the face in order to
create a portrait of face expressing an emotion.
>...speaking of executing...
>
>Two scenes:
>Barry and Bullingdon ----- Joker and The Sniper.
>From the character's POV's does the viewer find a component of the rational
>in their actions?
Well I wouldn't look for rationality there, necessarily. When I speak of SK
using rationality I'm not talking about >depicting< rationality, I'm talking
about having it inform a worthwhile set of artistic insights. Certainly in
"Dr. Strangelove" (and elsewhere in Kubrick) you have the worst possible of
worlds coming about as a result of the conflagration of >limited< rationality
and unacknowledged instinctual and cultural motivations. That mix is one
popular explanation of HAL's problems (one that I don't buy into entirely,
BTW).
We don't really know. While Kubrick provides allusion
>and inference cues in a development toward these events , which in no way
>disregrds the watertight integrity of the non-submersible units, he does not
>provide a defined exposition of motive in either case. Does Barry's firing
>into the ground denote a rational course of action? Conversely, is Joker's
>act a mercy killing - a non-rational moral act?
But in both cases these acts are fairly well determined by circumstances,
rather than being a proving ground for a methodology in moral decision-making.
In the case of Barry, he faces a dilemma; possibly die and end the suffering I
have created for myself and others (but I don't want to die), or kill
Bullingdon, save my life, and continue and exacerbate the suffering of myself
and others. His choice reflects a maturity and a break from his
self-interested past, but there is no more or less rational choice presented in
a dilemma.
In the case of Joker, I see it as an internal battle that's even more
torturous. Joker feels the need for revenge, knows that he should feel the
empathy that would morally inform the mercy killing (which >he< suggests,
importantly), but he sees in himself the reflection of Animal's universal
hatred. This is really rationality subsumed in feelings he has lost control
over, in my view.
In either case, Kubrick's
>ambiguity, i.e. the denial of an approved interpretation belies an entirely
>rational approach to the events.
>While Kubrick's chess-logic rationality may have been a predominant trait of
>his character, I think we miss much, of both film and director, if we
>disregard the transcendant and intuitive in his work.
Well I don't want to be one for disregarding such things, but I think the very
ambiguity you point to here is not at odds with rationality but an expression
of a commitment to not to spell out a specific idealized concept of humanity.
I mean, imagine for one horrifying moment the film had ended with a voice-over
monologue of the sort, "I knew I had done the right thing by shooting the
sniper." That would not be the expression of an artist with a rational
perspective--it would be the compromise of someone who rejects rationality for
a short cut of superficial idealization.
Why is the end of "Saving Private Ryan" occuring to to me at the moment?
Mark Ervin
Tobasco
M4RV1N wrote
> >Tobasco
> writes:
>
>
> >Define rational.
>
> What I mean in the instance of how Kubrick viewed humanity is that he was
> rational in the sense of having a grasp of the architecture, or the
> "engineering," if you will, behind human failings.
>
much examine human failings as explore the quite distinct species of the
human condition (both failings and successes)? Is K oftentimes not
exploring the dynamics of Entropy? Secondly, while it's obvious Kubrick
examined underlying structures of both the macro (socio-political) and micro
(psych) of human experience, I fail, ahem, to see how he restricted his
approach and method to simply the rational. The Starchild may be an
eminently rational being to a million years advanced culture but is entirely
out of the scope of human Inductive/Reductive/Deductive gropings. Same for
the Monolith. I vote that the mystery invoked in 2001 is quite beyond the
Rational as we have developed said reasoning. I don't know how 'rational'
TS is for that matter, in many ways this film is one pretzeled mindfuck.
>
> Well, I would submit that it's not an act of reduction, per se, to suggest
that
> an artist makes use of a standpoint which allows for an explanatory
framework
> of morality, or more precisely for the theoretical proposition of such a
> framework. This as opposed to a metaphysical or idealized framework which
> begins with the notion of the denial of any explanatory framework.
>
Not that Reductionism is necessarily a bad thing; or at least any more so
than any other form of analytical procedure.
Show me the moral framework. I don't doubt that Kubrick did develop a
personal moral doctrine ---- of a sort. Perhaps an A-doctrinal or even an
A-Rational approach, but as Nelson points out, Kubrick's universe is
contingent if nothing else. An act that is moral in one instance may be
immoral in the next. That which is rational in one context is absurd in
another. Kubrick never cited Hartman as an evilmeannastybad person. In
fact, I recall Kubrick stating that Hartman was necessary in a civilization
that had any intention of waging war. Of course war is evil. But how can
any nation expect to exist as such without maintaining a capability of
defending/protecting whatever sovereignty it has on whatever level it exists
on? While satiring the various mythos of Nationalism, what did Kubrick offer
as a replacement? Kubrick may have been an enlightened anarchist, but I
don't see where he actually showed how this approach might be practical - or
even possible.
> If Kubrick believed (as I contend he did) that there exists a set of
facts,
> which if known and admitted to, could be brought to bear in improving the
human
> condition and preventing the repitition of past immoralities, and he
expressed
> such ideas in his art, then that's what I would regard as the use of
> rationalism in expression.
>
I'm all in favor of advancing human 'consciousness' --- ummm errrrrr what is
that anyway? Did K know?
I don't argue that K was not a metaphysician. I argue that neither was he a
Rationalist.
Do you really think Schopenhauer is all that nihlistic?
When I speak of SK
> using rationality I'm not talking about >depicting< rationality, I'm
talking
> about having it inform a worthwhile set of artistic insights. Certainly
in
> "Dr. Strangelove" (and elsewhere in Kubrick) you have the worst possible
of
> worlds coming about as a result of the conflagration of >limited<
rationality
> and unacknowledged instinctual and cultural motivations. That mix is one
> popular explanation of HAL's problems (one that I don't buy into entirely,
> BTW).
>
Yeah, Muffley was a pretty rational kinda guy...
Well Mark, as visually oriented as K was, I cannot in all rationality, see
how we can not look to his images and depictions for illumination as to the
man and his morality. I'm not deliberately twisting the argument here - but
it seems to me that we >have< to use scenes such as these as orientation
points in experiencing the Overall (Big Smith) of K's works. An Overall
that is -howsoever cliche- a Gestaltish 'more than the sum of it's parts'.
One of those parts being what we have been calling the Rational.
> Well I don't want to be one for disregarding such things, but I think the
very
> ambiguity you point to here is not at odds with rationality but an
expression
> of a commitment to not to spell out a specific idealized concept of
humanity.
I'm not saying it is at odds - this is not a matter of polarized
antagonists. I'm saying that to consider K a Rationalist is in itself
classifying K as an idealist.
Recursively Yours
Tobasco
>
M4RV1N
writes:
>> What I mean in the instance of how Kubrick viewed humanity is that he was
>> rational in the sense of having a grasp of the architecture, or the
>> "engineering," if you will, behind human failings.
>>
>Firstly, failings to accomplish what? Or to achieve what? Does Kubrick so
>much examine human failings as explore the quite distinct species of the
>human condition (both failings and successes)?
Well that's true, but expanding the horizon in that way does not negate my
position about the value of a rational understanding of the mechanics of human
behavior. In fact I could add to your point by suggesting that when people do
succeed in a Kubrick film it has more meaning because that success occurs in a
realistic context (the depiction of how humans so often fail). There's also
the paradox of presenting success >as failure< as a part of the conundrum of
incomplete knowledge (cf, the completion of the bombing mission in Dr. S).
Is K oftentimes not
>exploring the dynamics of Entropy?
Absolutely, but it's only interesting in the context of the interplay of human
decisions and limitations. Otherwise we have a film about a tree falling on
someone, they're dead, and there's not much to be meaningfully derived beyond
the philosophical claim, "shit happens." Entropy in isolation is not much more
interesting than that, really.
Secondly, while it's obvious Kubrick
>examined underlying structures of both the macro (socio-political) and micro
>(psych) of human experience, I fail, ahem, to see how he restricted his
>approach and method to simply the rational. The Starchild may be an
>eminently rational being to a million years advanced culture but is entirely
>out of the scope of human Inductive/Reductive/Deductive gropings. Same for
>the Monolith. I vote that the mystery invoked in 2001 is quite beyond the
>Rational as we have developed said reasoning.
True, but if the ending of "2001" is optimistic (and I would contend it is)
then what it is a break from is bleak or pessimistic in some sense. I would
contend what is wrong is, in essence, the confrontation at the watering hole,
which is not rational but instinctual. Interesting how the phrase, "This could
easily spread to our base... We should be given all the facts..." has a certain
topicality at the moment... Anyway, while the Starchild posits perhaps
something outside of our conventional rationality (a point I'll give you), it
demands a rejection of the irrationality (artistically depicted as going in
circles, among other means) Kubrick depicts through the first half of the film.
I don't know how 'rational'
>TS is for that matter, in many ways this film is one pretzeled mindfuck.
Excellent point, and I could not have described the film's distortion of
reality any better.
TS is, I have long contended, a metaphysical thought experiment on evil. The
relation to our world is what a fairy tale is to the world of a child. The
moral lessons carry over while nothing of the logic or constructs do.
>> Well, I would submit that it's not an act of reduction, per se, to suggest
>that
>> an artist makes use of a standpoint which allows for an explanatory
>framework
>> of morality, or more precisely for the theoretical proposition of such a
>> framework. This as opposed to a metaphysical or idealized framework which
>> begins with the notion of the denial of any explanatory framework.
>>
>
>Not that Reductionism is necessarily a bad thing; or at least any more so
>than any other form of analytical procedure.
>Show me the moral framework. I don't doubt that Kubrick did develop a
>personal moral doctrine ---- of a sort.
I think it's a point that people can disagree on to some extent, but Kubrick
hated obvious moralizing because it's so idealized and superficial. But
oblique morality is still morality. There's clearly an outrage implicit in Dr.
S, and ACO as well.
One of the best essays ever published on Kubrick's work is "Kubrick and His
Discontents" by Hans Feldman (it's on the net somewhere but I forget where at
the moment). Feldman makes the powerful case that the artistic impetus of
Kubrick's films is that we must recognize how instinct and culture threaten our
survival.
Perhaps an A-doctrinal or even an
>A-Rational approach, but as Nelson points out, Kubrick's universe is
>contingent if nothing else. An act that is moral in one instance may be
>immoral in the next. That which is rational in one context is absurd in
>another.
And these confusions are bound to a lack of objectivity.
Kubrick never cited Hartman as an evilmeannastybad person. In
>fact, I recall Kubrick stating that Hartman was necessary in a civilization
>that had any intention of waging war.
Absolutely, but there is zero endorsment in either direction. If you assume
war, Hartman makes soldiers ten times better than brand X. The anthropological
objectivity of FMJ screams, "This is how it works when it works perfectly" with
regard to everything except Pyle and Joker at the end.
Of course war is evil. But how can
>any nation expect to exist as such without maintaining a capability of
>defending/protecting whatever sovereignty it has on whatever level it exists
>on? While satiring the various mythos of Nationalism, what did Kubrick offer
>as a replacement? Kubrick may have been an enlightened anarchist, but I
>don't see where he actually showed how this approach might be practical - or
>even possible.
Well I think Kubrick would have been as skeptical about anarcho syndicalism as
about anything else if you assume humans are at the controls. Somewhere he did
agree with Churchill, that democracy was the worst possible system, except for
all the other ones, and that's echoed in various comments (see esp. the Ciment
interview on ACO).
>> If Kubrick believed (as I contend he did) that there exists a set of
>facts,
>> which if known and admitted to, could be brought to bear in improving the
>human
>> condition and preventing the repitition of past immoralities, and he
>expressed
>> such ideas in his art, then that's what I would regard as the use of
>> rationalism in expression.
>>
>
>I'm all in favor of advancing human 'consciousness' --- ummm errrrrr what is
>that anyway? Did K know?
>I don't argue that K was not a metaphysician. I argue that neither was he a
>Rationalist.
>Do you really think Schopenhauer is all that nihlistic?
Caught on the knife edge between realism and nihilism, perhaps.
Hmmm. Let me ponder this, before I respond.
Mark Ervin
Padraig L Henry
>>Tobasco
>writes:
>
>>> Really, though he uses the metaphors of religion where artistically apt,
>>the
>>> view that Kubrick had of the human race was highly objective and rational.
>>> It's a perspective that made some people quite uncomfortable--in part
>>because
>>> it's so rare.
>
>>Define rational.
>
>What I mean in the instance of how Kubrick viewed humanity is that he was
>rational in the sense of having a grasp of the architecture, or the
>"engineering," if you will, behind human failings.
Sorry if I wander a wee bitty off of Kubrickean Rationality per se ...
but perusing an old copy of Stanislaw Lem's Solaris in
contra-connection with something entirely unrelated to rationality, I
read in an accompanying essay about said sf author an infectiously
in-stitches funny definition by Stanlem of that almost-very concept
(albeit Reason), as follows:
"A second-degree homeostatic regulator able to counteract the
perturbations of its environment by action based on historically
acquired knowledge."
So I'd better be keeping a keen eye on all me ole perturbations from
here on ...
But, eh, its also kinda interesting that Lem, way back in 1964, wrote
Robotic Fables, a humanistic re-telling of folktales and myths in
cybernetic guise and addressed at contemporary society. I'm wondering
if Kubrick ever spotted this. Some of Lem's ideas would certainly have
gelled with those of Kubrick regarding AI, and almost certainly the
notion that Solaris itself (the novel, more than the film) is a
parable, a puzzle about the authenticity of human emotions and
relations, and a demonstration that anthropocentric criteria and
"final solutions" of the religious, scientific, or political kind are
inapplicable in the modern world. But try telling that to a bin-liner
or a shrub ...
Padraig
Tobasco
M4RV1N
> Is K oftentimes not
> >exploring the dynamics of Entropy?
>
> Absolutely, but it's only interesting in the context of the interplay of
human
> decisions and limitations. Otherwise we have a film about a tree falling
on
> someone, they're dead, and there's not much to be meaningfully derived
beyond
> the philosophical claim, "shit happens." Entropy in isolation is not much
more
> interesting than that, really.
Anything, in isolation, would be interesting in that there is nothing that
is isolated. Barry's and Jack's tales are entropic studies. Camus's The
Fall?
>
> True, but if the ending of "2001" is optimistic (and I would contend it
is)
> then what it is a break from is bleak or pessimistic in some sense. I
would
> contend what is wrong is, in essence, the confrontation at the watering
hole,
> which is not rational but instinctual.
Another way of seeing it: The waterhole killing is highly rational - one
has a competitor for an essential material, water; kill the competitor and
the problem at hand is solved. An employment of rational means (application
of a tool) in service of fulfilling the instinctive/instinctual drive to
survive. ZoomJump cut to a set of explosive bolts and a screwdriver and we
have a mirror image. Can we not say that humanity has become suffocated by
it's own rationality until Dave takes the plunge... and then is taken on a
plunge.
Interesting how the phrase, "This could
> easily spread to our base... We should be given all the facts..." has a
certain
> topicality at the moment... Anyway, while the Starchild posits perhaps
> something outside of our conventional rationality (a point I'll give you),
it
> demands a rejection of the irrationality (artistically depicted as going
in
> circles, among other means) Kubrick depicts through the first half of the
film.
>
I disagree that K is presenting irrationality in the first half - space
flight and the associated engineering etc. that is implied is highly
rational. Even the politics at the waterhole/coffee table are rational.
HAL being the epitome of rational process that he is, is thrown askew when
the very intelligence that defines his existence gives rise to a -gasp-
instinct. A phenomenon that he is entirely incapable of dealing with
errrrrrrr rationally.
A friend relayed this to me some time ago:
Sitting on Alan Watts' houseboat in Sausalito - John was talking about the
problems he was having in reconciling his practice of Zen with his work on a
doctoral thesis (Philosophy). Watts, wine in hand as usual, simply laughed
and said, "Well, yeah! That's always going to be a problem if you cannot
see that you can do 100% of two things at the same time. The only real
conflict is in your own categorizations. Can you rub the top of your head
clockwise and your belly counterclockwise at the same time? Women are a lot
better at this sort of thing than men are.".
I'm simply pointing out that K could do the head top rub (rational) and the
belly deal (instinct - whatever) dance skillfully. More importantly, K
could stop rubbing altogether.
> I don't know how 'rational'
> >TS is for that matter, in many ways this film is one pretzeled mindfuck.
>
> Excellent point, and I could not have described the film's distortion of
> reality any better.
>
I recall g. describing TS as a mindfuck in a long-ago post. I agree, in an
Escher kind of way.
>
> I think it's a point that people can disagree on to some extent, but
Kubrick
> hated obvious moralizing because it's so idealized and superficial. But
> oblique morality is still morality. There's clearly an outrage implicit
in Dr.
> S, and ACO as well.
>
Absolutely, moral inferences abound in all the films to one degree or
another. I would hope that the reader would realize that I'm simply
discussing the degree to which K relied on rationality, not arguing the
point of whether or not he developed well-considered, incisive and yes,
rational views of the human condition. I'm asserting that he did not limit
himself to the framework of orthodox structures of inquiry. One structure
being that of 'rational' perspective.
Feldman makes the powerful case that the artistic impetus of
> Kubrick's films is that we must recognize how instinct and culture
threaten our
> survival.
>
Does our instinct to survive interefere with our ability to survive? How
irrational! An Australopithiciene all dressed up in a tux - with nowhere
to go. K may have been an Appollonian but I don't see that he was an
anti-Dionysian. All these polarities - tsk tsk.
> Hmmm. Let me ponder this, before I respond.
>
I've been watching the battle of the ants myself.
Tobasco
M4RV1N
writes:
>but it's only interesting in the context of the interplay of
>human
>> decisions and limitations. Otherwise we have a film about a tree falling
>on
>> someone, they're dead, and there's not much to be meaningfully derived
>beyond
>> the philosophical claim, "shit happens." Entropy in isolation is not much
>more
>> interesting than that, really.
>
>Anything, in isolation, would be interesting in that there is nothing that
>is isolated. Barry's and Jack's tales are entropic studies. Camus's The
>Fall?
These are so different to me. Barry is constantly trying to take cues on how
to live, both from others and from societal norms at various social stratas.
Entropy influences his life in several key events, but again, that's not what
is interesting about the story. Jack is trying to escape from the world of
entropy and find true fulfillment-as-ogre. Wendy and Danny are his personal
burden of entropic forces as they attempt to escape his clockwork enternity.
"The Fall" is about how action and inaction both can blow up in your face. I
think Camus suggests ignorance dictates the terms of failure as much as entropy
does, but it's been a long while since I read the Existen-lit.
>> True, but if the ending of "2001" is optimistic (and I would contend it
>is)
>> then what it is a break from is bleak or pessimistic in some sense. I
>would
>> contend what is wrong is, in essence, the confrontation at the watering
>hole,
>> which is not rational but instinctual.
>
>Another way of seeing it: The waterhole killing is highly rational - one
>has a competitor for an essential material, water; kill the competitor and
>the problem at hand is solved.
I don't think that's what's depicted; the watering hole is clearly huge, and it
has not come to the point of killling a member of the same species over water.
The problem was scarcity of >food< and Moonwatcher's conceptualization has
solved that. The reason they kill is tribalism, which does have survival in
scarcity (which is no more).
An employment of rational means (application
>of a tool) in service of fulfilling the instinctive/instinctual drive to
>survive. ZoomJump cut to a set of explosive bolts and a screwdriver and we
>have a mirror image. Can we not say that humanity has become suffocated by
>it's own rationality until Dave takes the plunge... and then is taken on a
>plunge.
I think this is the wrong way to read this part of the film. Dave used a
creative conceptualization which HAL couldn't imagine as possible ("...you'll
find that rather difficult," he says, with pointed irony). This is the
parallel with Moonwatcher staring at the bones--it's thinking of something
different. There's no attempt or need to distance this in any way from
rationality. Intuitive, spontaneous, creative insight can be rational, and if
it's of value is usually is rational.
> Interesting how the phrase, "This could
>> easily spread to our base... We should be given all the facts..." has a
>certain
>> topicality at the moment... Anyway, while the Starchild posits perhaps
>> something outside of our conventional rationality (a point I'll give you),
>it
>> demands a rejection of the irrationality (artistically depicted as going
>in
>> circles, among other means) Kubrick depicts through the first half of the
>film.
>>
>
>I disagree that K is presenting irrationality in the first half - space
>flight and the associated engineering etc. that is implied is highly
>rational.
Yes, and the point is what good is it doing for real progress when tribalism is
still the order of the day (which leads to your next comment).
Even the politics at the waterhole/coffee table are rational.
No. Not. A stupid epidemic rumor? Hiding the most important discovery in
human history when you "don't have any idea what the damned thing is," anyway?
No. Not at all rational. Tribal and instinctual and ignorant just like the
meaningless standoff at the watering hole. At least the man-apes put on a show
with their jumping and hollering.
>HAL being the epitome of rational process that he is, is thrown askew when
>the very intelligence that defines his existence gives rise to a -gasp-
>instinct. A phenomenon that he is entirely incapable of dealing with
>errrrrrrr rationally.
What if HAL worked out the possibilities ("I'm sorry Frank, I think you missed
it") of what might happen in the near future. His verbal defense of his own
life is pretty sound; it might get second degree murder in court...
>A friend relayed this to me some time ago:
>Sitting on Alan Watts' houseboat in Sausalito - John was talking about the
>problems he was having in reconciling his practice of Zen with his work on a
>doctoral thesis (Philosophy). Watts, wine in hand as usual, simply laughed
>and said, "Well, yeah! That's always going to be a problem if you cannot
>see that you can do 100% of two things at the same time. The only real
>conflict is in your own categorizations. Can you rub the top of your head
>clockwise and your belly counterclockwise at the same time? Women are a lot
>better at this sort of thing than men are.".
>
>I'm simply pointing out that K could do the head top rub (rational) and the
>belly deal (instinct - whatever) dance skillfully. More importantly, K
>could stop rubbing altogether.
Okay, that's all fine by me, and I agree with it.
>> I don't know how 'rational'
>> >TS is for that matter, in many ways this film is one pretzeled mindfuck.
>>
>> Excellent point, and I could not have described the film's distortion of
>> reality any better.
>>
>
>I recall g. describing TS as a mindfuck in a long-ago post. I agree, in an
>Escher kind of way.
And it's a perfectly valid thing to do, to astonish, recalling Kubrick's
quotation of Cochteau. But TS is a metaphysical closed-loop microcosm of
what's wrong with this civization thing we've come up with, and it is far from
any rationalism.
>> I think it's a point that people can disagree on to some extent, but
>Kubrick
>> hated obvious moralizing because it's so idealized and superficial. But
>> oblique morality is still morality. There's clearly an outrage implicit
>in Dr.
>> S, and ACO as well.
>>
>
>Absolutely, moral inferences abound in all the films to one degree or
>another. I would hope that the reader would realize that I'm simply
>discussing the degree to which K relied on rationality, not arguing the
>point of whether or not he developed well-considered, incisive and yes,
>rational views of the human condition. I'm asserting that he did not limit
>himself to the framework of orthodox structures of inquiry. One structure
>being that of 'rational' perspective.
Well you say orthodox like it's a bad thing, and... it is a bad thing. So
you're right, but it's important to address why. Orthodox structures of
inquiry would be unquestioned--and the essence of Kubrick film is to raise
questions. A rational framework is the invitation to question, in my view.
>Feldman makes the powerful case that the artistic impetus of
>> Kubrick's films is that we must recognize how instinct and culture
>threaten our
>> survival.
>>
>
>Does our instinct to survive interefere with our ability to survive? How
>irrational!
Of course, because it's obsolescence is not immediately apparent and requires
(cue "Presto" music) rationality--to become apparent.
An Australopithiciene all dressed up in a tux - with nowhere
>to go. K may have been an Appollonian but I don't see that he was an
>anti-Dionysian. All these polarities - tsk tsk.
>
>> Hmmm. Let me ponder this, before I respond.
>>
>
>I've been watching the battle of the ants myself.
The red ants have resources and drones and the black ants have deep tunnels and
lots of territory.
Just think if Thoreau had been watching those fire ants, and one had stung him,
and he'd run off screaming, and wound up writing how horrible the natural world
was. That would be entropy over rationality.
Mark Ervin
Tobasco
M4RV1N wrote
> >Anything, in isolation, would be interesting in that there is nothing
that
> >is isolated. Barry's and Jack's tales are entropic studies. Camus's The
> >Fall?
>
> These are so different to me. Barry is constantly trying to take cues on
how
> to live, both from others and from societal norms at various social
stratas.
> Entropy influences his life in several key events, but again, that's not
what
> is interesting about the story. Jack is trying to escape from the world
of
> entropy and find true fulfillment-as-ogre. Wendy and Danny are his
personal
> burden of entropic forces as they attempt to escape his clockwork
enternity.
>
a concommitant loss of energy or impetus in the character's momentum.
Whether or not these trajectories are of interest to a given viewer, I'd say
they were of interest to Kubrick in that he integrated this very movement
into the plot lines. I don't recall stating that K's films were studies of
Entropy but do recall stating they can be considered Entropic studies as
viewed from a given perspective..
> "The Fall" is about how action and inaction both can blow up in your face.
I
> think Camus suggests ignorance dictates the terms of failure as much as
entropy
> does, but it's been a long while since I read the Existen-lit.
The Fall is about guilt and the absurd. I see more than a tad of Camus'
Absurdity in Kubrick's central characters from Alex on into Bill.
> >Another way of seeing it: The waterhole killing is highly rational - one
> >has a competitor for an essential material, water; kill the competitor
and
> >the problem at hand is solved.
>
> I don't think that's what's depicted; the watering hole is clearly huge,
and it
> has not come to the point of killling a member of the same species over
water.
Why not? Was Moonwatcher considering a parley, a set of negotiations to
engage in before his nasty Shadow made him beat his fellow desert dweller to
death? Water is life, grasshopper ;->. More so than food in a pinch and
especially so in the environment they were living in. Oh no -- water=big
deal.
> The problem was scarcity of >food< and Moonwatcher's conceptualization has
> solved that. The reason they kill is tribalism, which does have survival
in
> scarcity (which is no more).
>
See above. The baseline resource is water. Why they kill is for survival.
The tribal instinct arises due to survival strategies as developed by any
number of species.
>
> I think this is the wrong way to read this part of the film. Dave used a
> creative conceptualization which HAL couldn't imagine as possible
("...you'll
> find that rather difficult," he says, with pointed irony). This is the
> parallel with Moonwatcher staring at the bones--it's thinking of something
> different. There's no attempt or need to distance this in any way from
> rationality. Intuitive, spontaneous, creative insight can be rational,
and if
> it's of value is usually is rational.
>
Well I don't think Kubrick would argue my rightness or wrongness. In my
elementary mind, I see HAL discovering an instinctual motif in his own
makeup, one he is entirely incapable of dealing with in a rational manner.
Guess it's good that I'm not taking a written exam on this, eh?
> Even the politics at the waterhole/coffee table are rational.
>
> No. Not. A stupid epidemic rumor? Hiding the most important discovery
in
> human history when you "don't have any idea what the damned thing is,"
anyway?
> No. Not at all rational. Tribal and instinctual and ignorant just like
the
> meaningless standoff at the watering hole. At least the man-apes put on a
show
> with their jumping and hollering.
>
LOL
Yes it is. Yes it is. We're in an ongoing political rhubarb, I've
discovered something that may be of great value, something that could very
well give me an edge on you - it would be rather irrational of me to
disclose this information to you ------ given the context of our nuclear
tete e tete. What is absurd and entirely irrational is the simple fact that
we're in a cold war showdown at all. Do you think Kubrick telegraphed his
chess moves?
> >I recall g. describing TS as a mindfuck in a long-ago post. I agree, in
an
> >Escher kind of way.
>
> And it's a perfectly valid thing to do, to astonish, recalling Kubrick's
> quotation of Cochteau. But TS is a metaphysical closed-loop microcosm of
> what's wrong with this civization thing we've come up with, and it is far
from
> any rationalism.
>
Yeah, what I said...
> >Feldman makes the powerful case that the artistic impetus of
> >> Kubrick's films is that we must recognize how instinct and culture
> >threaten our
> >> survival.
> >>
> >
> >Does our instinct to survive interefere with our ability to survive? How
> >irrational!
>
> Of course, because it's obsolescence is not immediately apparent and
requires
> (cue "Presto" music) rationality--to become apparent.
>
Why do you get up in the morning Mark? Why do you eat? The survival
instinct obsolete? I'm lost for words on this one. Are you proposing that
Kubrick considered human instinct obsolete? Next thing I know you're going
to say fucking is going out of style...
No really, please explain this one.
And no, I don't care to traverse the instinct VS rational mind path. What
is the point? An entirely unnecessary complication that we humans have
trapped ourselves in. But we keep doing it. Remember the Escher
beast-in-a-cage-in- space?
I suppose most of us have been at least snapped at by the alligator in ye
olde reptilian mind. But once you know it's there...
Tobasco
M4RV1N
writes:
{got disTRACTed from this discussion, and it's taken me TIME to get back to
where I was. (another sheet of paper appears mysteriously in the typewriter,
which has stopped booming and changed color to match my shirt...)}
Now then.
>>Barry is constantly trying to take cues on
>how
>> to live, both from others and from societal norms at various social
>stratas.
>> Entropy influences his life in several key events, but again, that's not
>what
>> is interesting about the story. Jack is trying to escape from the world
>of
>> entropy and find true fulfillment-as-ogre. Wendy and Danny are his
>personal
>> burden of entropic forces as they attempt to escape his clockwork
>enternity.
>>
>But both Barry and Jack's paths trace a line of increasing disorder - with
>a concommitant loss of energy or impetus in the character's momentum.
Barry's path is up the hill, and down the hill. Jack's path >was<, "...a way
of making ends meet," and becomes, "I've never been this happy or comfortable
anywhere."; "Anything you say, Lloyd."; and "I give you my word, Mr. Grady."
Explain more what you mean by loss of energy in the first half of BL and the
second half of TS, to be sure I understand what you mean here.
>Whether or not these trajectories are of interest to a given viewer, I'd say
>they were of interest to Kubrick in that he integrated this very movement
>into the plot lines. I don't recall stating that K's films were studies of
>Entropy but do recall stating they can be considered Entropic studies as
>viewed from a given perspective..
>The Fall is about guilt and the absurd. I see more than a tad of Camus'
>Absurdity in Kubrick's central characters from Alex on into Bill.
Agreed on that. There are differences in that Alex can never see himself as
absurd, and Barry becomes really good at it in the end. Jack sees his past
life as absurd, certainly.
>> >Another way of seeing it: The waterhole killing is highly rational - one
>> >has a competitor for an essential material, water; kill the competitor
>and
>> >the problem at hand is solved.
>>
>> I don't think that's what's depicted; the watering hole is clearly huge,
>and it
>> has not come to the point of killling a member of the same species over
>water.
>
>Why not? Was Moonwatcher considering a parley, a set of negotiations to
>engage in before his nasty Shadow made him beat his fellow desert dweller to
>death? Water is life, grasshopper ;->. More so than food in a pinch and
>especially so in the environment they were living in. Oh no -- water=big
>deal.
But I regard Moonwatcher as a thinking thing, not a purely instinctual thing.
The degree of this difference I'll make plain shortly.
>> The problem was scarcity of >food< and Moonwatcher's conceptualization has
>> solved that. The reason they kill is tribalism, which does have survival
>in
>> scarcity (which is no more).
>>
>See above. The baseline resource is water. Why they kill is for survival.
>The tribal instinct arises due to survival strategies as developed by any
>number of species.
A defense of territory is an evolutionary weighing of comparitive risk. If the
genes do it alone, the decision's a done deal. Strategy X works more often and
is preserved. In the case of Moonwatcher, he is pushed in the direction of
defense by instinct, but not ruled by it. The final decision is in the
neocortex, not the deoxyribonucleic acid formations alone.
>> I think this is the wrong way to read this part of the film. Dave used a
>> creative conceptualization which HAL couldn't imagine as possible
>("...you'll
>> find that rather difficult," he says, with pointed irony). This is the
>> parallel with Moonwatcher staring at the bones--it's thinking of something
>> different. There's no attempt or need to distance this in any way from
>> rationality. Intuitive, spontaneous, creative insight can be rational,
>and if
>> it's of value is usually is rational.
>>
>
>Well I don't think Kubrick would argue my rightness or wrongness.
He smiled silently at each conflicting interpretation. You would merit a
smile; I would merit a smile. No help.
In my
>elementary mind, I see HAL discovering an instinctual motif in his own
>makeup, one he is entirely incapable of dealing with in a rational manner.
>Guess it's good that I'm not taking a written exam on this, eh?
It's an existential essay question. The old Woody Allen joke is that he left
one of these blank and got an 'A.' I think this view of HAL's discovery of his
instinct to survive is a very worthwhile idea. He could have intuited the
value of survival from Dr. Langley ("he taught me to sing a song."). He also
questions his decision making--when forced.
>> Even the politics at the waterhole/coffee table are rational.
>>
>> No. Not. A stupid epidemic rumor? Hiding the most important discovery
>in
>> human history when you "don't have any idea what the damned thing is,"
>anyway?
>> No. Not at all rational. Tribal and instinctual and ignorant just like
>the
>> meaningless standoff at the watering hole. At least the man-apes put on a
>show
>> with their jumping and hollering.
>>
>
>LOL
>Yes it is. Yes it is. We're in an ongoing political rhubarb, I've
>discovered something that may be of great value, something that could very
>well give me an edge on you - it would be rather irrational of me to
>disclose this information to you ------ given the context of our nuclear
>tete e tete. What is absurd and entirely irrational is the simple fact that
>we're in a cold war showdown at all.
Bingo. The root is irrational, the rational seeming leaves on the tree are a
damn fraud.
Do you think Kubrick telegraphed his
>chess moves?
But the hiding of chess plans from the opponent does not put you both in danger
of death. There are rational roots here.
>> >I recall g. describing TS as a mindfuck in a long-ago post. I agree, in
>an
>> >Escher kind of way.
>>
>> And it's a perfectly valid thing to do, to astonish, recalling Kubrick's
>> quotation of Cochteau. But TS is a metaphysical closed-loop microcosm of
>> what's wrong with this civization thing we've come up with, and it is far
>from
>> any rationalism.
>>
>Yeah, what I said...
_____
>> >Feldman makes the powerful case that the artistic impetus of
>> >> Kubrick's films is that we must recognize how instinct and culture
>> >threaten our
>> >> survival.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Does our instinct to survive interefere with our ability to survive? How
>> >irrational!
>>
>> Of course, because it's obsolescence is not immediately apparent and
>requires
>> (cue "Presto" music) rationality--to become apparent.
>>
>Why do you get up in the morning Mark?
It's the sun or the clock; I prefer the former one.
>Why do you eat?
Why do I snack, is the question.
The survival
>instinct obsolete?
No, the point has escaped. It is not survival instinct that is problematic, is
it obsolete survival instinct that is problematic.
I'm lost for words on this one. Are you proposing that
>Kubrick considered human instinct obsolete?
Some of it yes. He said this many times. Here is a great quote:
"Men are not becoming more objective and rational. We are still essentially
programmed with the same instincts we started out with four million years ago.
Somebody said man is the missing link between primitive apes and civilized
human beings."
Next thing I know you're going
>to say fucking is going out of style...
On the list of ancillary animalistic attributes I would put this as one of my
favorites. No need to dispense with it yet, at least during my lifetime. Call
me un-objective on this one.
Mark Ervin