The HAL-IBM Controversy Revisited
Leonard F. Wheat
those who deny that HAL is deliberate symbolism in which each letter
of IBM is lagged by one letter of the alphabet (I becomes H, etc.).
"John" wrote: "[Arthur] Clarke himself has stated that this was a
coincidence and he never even considered the juxtaposition of letters
when naming HAL."
Desmond, who can see through specious arguments
("coincidence"), replied: "I disagree. IBM acted as consultants for
the movie and refused to allow ‘IBM' to be used when they found out
the villain was the computer." Here Desmond alludes to Kubrick's
original intent to put the IBM logo on the computer – to go along with
the Pan-Am logo on the earth shuttle, the Howard Johnsons sign on the
space station restaurant, and the Hilton Hotels sign on the space
station hotel. When IBM demurred, Kubrick – he, not Clarke, was in
charge of names – changed the computer's name from Athena to HAL.
(Athena was itself a change from the original name, Socrates.)
Gordon Dahlquist tries to rebut Desmond by repeating
Clarke's lame denial of the HAL-IBM connection: "Clarke has repeatedly
denied this." Clarke tried to cover up the mischief by claiming that
Hal is an acronym for "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
But any fool can plainly see that HAL is not such an acronym. An
acronym must include the first letter of every important word in the
title the acronym stands for. (Prepositions, conjunctions, and
articles can be excluded.) It can also include additional letters,
and it must be a pronounceable word, not just an abbreviation.
HAL does not meet the test of an acronym. Yes, it is a pronounceable
word. But it includes the first letters of only two of the four words
of Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer. It ignores the most
important word, "Computer, ‘ and it also ignores "Programmed." Where
is the C? Where is the P? A correct acronym would be HEPAC.
Contrast the false acronym HAL with the following genuine acronyms,
which might have been used but weren't:
* SOCRATES = SOphisticated Computer for RATional Empathic Symbiosis
* MURPH = Machine for Undertaking Rationally Processed Heuristics
* ALEC = ALgorithmic Electronic Computer
* MAC = Machine for Algorithmic Computation
There are seven good reasons for believing that the HAL-IBM
connection is genuine and that Clarke was simply trying cover up so as
not to offend IBM.
1. The mathematical odds against coincidence are formidable.
There are 2 chances in 26 (the alphabet has 26 letters) that the first
letter of HAL would be either the first letter above or the first
letter below the letter I from IBM. Because the next two letters, A
and L, must be on the same side of IBM as the H, each of them has only
1 chance in 26 of being both (a) adjacent to the corresponding letter
from IBM and (b) on the same alphabetical side – above or below – as
the first letter. The odds are thus 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/8,788.
There is one chance in 8,788 that the HAL-IBM relationship could occur
by chance.
2. Hal's full name is HAL 9000. The 9000 is definitely
symbolic, so HAL should also be. In Zoroastrian mythology, the
prophet Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) arrives after 9000 years of
mythological history to lead the fight against the evil god Angra
Mainyu (a.k.a. Ahriman). The year is 9001, the first year of a new
millennium. Dave Bowman, who symbolizes Zarathustra (in 2001's
Zarathustra allegory) thus arrives in the first year of a new
millennium: 2001 symbolizes 9001. And Hal arrives at the same time –
after 9000 years of mythological history.
3. Throughout 2001, Kubrick uses symbolic names. The
following names are symbolic: David Bowman, Heywood R. Floyd, Elena,
Franke Poole, Tycho, TMA-1, and AE-35. I can't review all of the
symbolism here – that would take pages – but take David Bowman as an
example. In the Odysseus allegory, Dave symbolizes Odysseus.
Odysseus was master of the Great Bow; he was a bow-man (archer). Dave
is also a bowman, spelled with a capital B. As for his first name,
Dave kills Hal by attacking the brain inside Discovery's forehead.
The biblical David slew Goliath in similar fashion: by attacking his
forehead (with a rock, hurled from a sling). Elena provides another
example. Elena, the Russian scientist Floyd meets at the space
station, symbolizes Helen of Troy. The name Elena is Russian for
Helen. Given that all 2001's important characters, and even places
and objects, have symbolic names, we should expect the name Hal to be
symbolic too.
4. The HAL-IBM connection provides useful symbolism in two of
2001's three allegories – the man-machine symbiosis allegory and the
Zarathustra allegory. In the symbiosis allegory, Hal symbolizes a
newly evolved race of man-machine symbiots – a race that ultimately
comes to a dead end so that evolution can proceed in a different and
better direction. HAL, a man's name, stands for the "man" side of
Hal, and IBM stands for the "machine" side. In the Zarathustra
allegory, Hal and his body, Discovery (I call them Hal-Discovery),
symbolize God. In THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA, Nietzsche turns "God
created man in his own image" upside down. Nietzsche asserts that man
created God in his (man's) own image. So Hal-Discovery has features
that make him "the image of man" (more or less). He even opens his
mouth (pod bay door), sticks out his tongue (pod launching ramp),
blows a bubble (spherical space pod), and watches is rise over his
head. IBM represents machines – computers are machines – and machines
are created by man, so the IBM part of HAL-IBM symbolizes "created by
man." HAL, as a man's name, represents man's image ("in his own
image").
5. Kubrick already had a symbolic name, Athena, for the
computer when he decided to change the name to Hal. (This was
Kubrick's decision, not Clarke's.) Because Athena is a Greek goddess
who plays an important role in Homer's THE ODYSSEY, the name Athena
would have provided a bold hint that 2001 was allegorically depicting
THE ODYSSEY. At the same time, because the computer is God in a
second allegory, the THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA allegory, the name Athena
provided a flash of humor: God is a woman. Kubrick would not have
abandoned the symbolic name Athena unless he had come up with an even
better symbolic name. HAL, with its IBM connection, was an even
better symbolic name.
6. It is too much of a coincidence that IBM represents what it
is supposed to represent, machines: Hal is a machine. It is even more
far-fetched to believe that, just by coincidence, the machines in
question (ones made by IBM), are of the very class that Hal belongs to
– computers. If IBM stood for International Biscuit Makers, Mr.
Dalquist might have at least a weak argument that the alphabetical
relationship between HAL and IBM is a coincidence. But when the
"coincidence" gets as precise as IBM = computers = Hal, coincidence
goes out the door.
7. Despite Clarke's tongue-in-cheek claim that HAL is an
acronym for Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer, I have
already shown that it isn't. A genuine acronym must include the first
letter of every word of the name it represents. But HAL has no P for
"Programmed" and no C for the most important word, "Computer."
Where's the acronym?
Chester Desmond, take a bow. You were right.
Padraig L Henry
Wheat) wrote:
>7. Despite Clarke's tongue-in-cheek claim that HAL is an
>acronym for Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer, I have
>already shown that it isn't. A genuine acronym must include the first
>letter of every word of the name it represents. But HAL has no P for
>"Programmed" and no C for the most important word, "Computer."
>Where's the acronym?
As was pointed out on countless, frenetically-documented occasions,
HAL is/was an acronym for Heuristic ALgorithmic, not the acronym that
you allude to above. Furthermore, as you are no doubt aware, the IBM
logo does appear in certain scenes during the Discovery sequence of
the film.
And Douglas Rain uses a Mac ...
Padraig
... and the NHN would now like to have a word with MGM.
Rod Munday
> I'm here to defend Chester Desmond, who (on another thread) challenged
> those who deny that HAL is deliberate symbolism in which each letter
> of IBM is lagged by one letter of the alphabet (I becomes H, etc.).
> "John" wrote: "[Arthur] Clarke himself has stated that this was a
> coincidence and he never even considered the juxtaposition of letters
> when naming HAL."
>
> Desmond, who can see through specious arguments
> ("coincidence"), replied: "I disagree. IBM acted as consultants for
> the movie and refused to allow ‘IBM' to be used when they found out
> the villain was the computer." Here Desmond alludes to Kubrick's
> original intent to put the IBM logo on the computer – to go along with
> the Pan-Am logo on the earth shuttle, the Howard Johnsons sign on the
> space station restaurant, and the Hilton Hotels sign on the space
> station hotel. When IBM demurred, Kubrick – he, not Clarke, was in
> charge of names – changed the computer's name from Athena to HAL.
> (Athena was itself a change from the original name, Socrates.)
This as far as I can see is not a question of the unlikelihood of the
HAL/IBM connection being a co-incidence, but of promoting an
interpretation at the expense of facts. Sure it is a great coincidence
that the letter HAL fall one place behind IBM in the alphabet, an
almost unbelievable co-incidence. Yet both the authors of 2001
maintained that it was indeed that, a co-incidence. As Gordon said
Clarke went to great lengths to stress this long after any fuss (legal
or otherwise) had died down. (Clarke even mentions that IBM are now
rather proud of the HAL connection). And yet he persists in denying
that it was deliberately contrived. Kubrick himself has denied the
connection, to Chris Kohler of the East Villiage Eye he said: "Just to
show you how interpretations can sometimes be bewildering: A
cryptographer went to see the film, and he said, "Oh, I get it. Each
letter of HAL's name is one letter ahead of IBM [...] now that's pure
co-incidence [...] an almost inconceivable co incidence. It would have
taken a cryptographer to notice that. So if you are a participant of
this newsgroup who knows a thing or two about 2001, and someone asks a
question about this or casts doubt on the likelihood that it was
unintentional, you feel duty bound almost to tell them the known facts
about this. Whether you believe them or not, Kubrick and Clarke's
denial has a validity that the assertion that they must be lying does
not have, because it is purely speculative. In your argument you are
trying to elevate the speculative over the facts, by appealing to
common sense about coincidence and interpreting reported events about
the making of the film. Sure its unlikely that the name HAL was chosen
accidentally but that does not make it impossible (see Jung's
Synchronicity for further examples of 'impossible coincidences) Sure
Clarke says it was Kubrick's decision to changed the name from Athena
to HAL, but I don't remember that being after IBM has wanted their
names removed form the computer but as an earlier scripting stage when
the two men were collaborating on a daily basis. Besides HAL is the
name of the computer not its make.
> Gordon Dahlquist tries to rebut Desmond by repeating
> Clarke's lame denial of the HAL-IBM connection: "Clarke has repeatedly
> denied this." Clarke tried to cover up the mischief by claiming that
> Hal is an acronym for "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
> But any fool can plainly see that HAL is not such an acronym.
Hmmm, may I just draw your attention the number of rhetorical devices
you use in this argument "Clarke's lame denial ," 'tried to cover up
the mischief," "But any fool can plainly see." An argument either
stands or falls on the strength of its reasoning and no amount of name
calling tacit appeals to the reader's intelligence will enhance it.
(I'm tempted to say that - any fool can plainly see that you are not
making a reasoned argument here.) :)
> An acronym must include the first letter of every important word in the
> title the acronym stands for. (Prepositions, conjunctions, and
> articles can be excluded.) It can also include additional letters,
> and it must be a pronounceable word, not just an abbreviation.
>
> HAL does not meet the test of an acronym. Yes, it is a pronounceable
> word. But it includes the first letters of only two of the four words
> of Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer. It ignores the most
> important word, "Computer, ‘ and it also ignores "Programmed." Where
> is the C? Where is the P? A correct acronym would be HEPAC.
> Contrast the false acronym HAL with the following genuine acronyms,
> which might have been used but weren't:
>
Snip
First point (which you kind of concede) an acronym does not have to be
made up of exclusively the first letters of the words it describes,
usually this is relaxed in favour of easy pronunciation, hence ASLEF
is still and acronym for The Association of locomotive Engineers and
NEDDY for the National incomes Commission.
Secondly HAL is an acronym for Heuristic Algorithmic, the two
competing methods that it was thought would produce AI in the 1960's.
It is therefore not an acronym for Heuristically Programmed
Algorithmic Computer.
>
> There are seven good reasons for believing that the HAL-IBM
> connection is genuine and that Clarke was simply trying cover up so as
> not to offend IBM.
>
> 1. The mathematical odds against coincidence are formidable.
> There are 2 chances in 26 (the alphabet has 26 letters) that the first
> letter of HAL would be either the first letter above or the first
> letter below the letter I from IBM. Because the next two letters, A
> and L, must be on the same side of IBM as the H, each of them has only
> 1 chance in 26 of being both (a) adjacent to the corresponding letter
> from IBM and (b) on the same alphabetical side – above or below – as
> the first letter. The odds are thus 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/8,788.
> There is one chance in 8,788 that the HAL-IBM relationship could occur
> by chance.
Yes, but occasionally chance happening occur. It is extremely unlikely
for someone in Britain to win the lottery (odds of 60,000,000 to 1
which make it statistically insignificant whether you buy a lottery
ticket or not) yet someone usually wins the lottery every week.
Besides it is not logical to assume that just because something has
not happened that it won't happen. That why you cannot say that the
sun will rise tomorrow and be scientifically correct (ref. David Hume,
Carl Popper)
> 2. Hal's full name is HAL 9000. The 9000 is definitely
> symbolic, so HAL should also be. In Zoroastrian mythology, the
> prophet Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) arrives after 9000 years of
> mythological history to lead the fight against the evil god Angra
> Mainyu (a.k.a. Ahriman). The year is 9001, the first year of a new
> millennium. Dave Bowman, who symbolizes Zarathustra (in 2001's
> Zarathustra allegory) thus arrives in the first year of a new
> millennium: 2001 symbolizes 9001. And Hal arrives at the same time –
> after 9000 years of mythological history.
Firstly what has this got do with IBM? Secondly that a pretty amazing
co-incidence you've got there, so by your own reasoning I suppose you
have cast doubt on your argument! :)
> 3. Throughout 2001, Kubrick uses symbolic names.
Snip Yes Kubrick took names from the Odyssey, but tell me what is the
symbolic association with Halverson? Kominski? Squirt?! Your argument
seems to deny artistic license whilst being eager to promote the myth
of Kubrick as the omnipotent, supremely conscious director who left
nothing to chance. I personally so not buy into this myth, I believe
Kubrick was an artist -- a very thorough and deliberating one
sometimes I'll grant you -- but someone who made artistic and
instinctive choices, because they felt right.
>
> 4. The HAL-IBM connection provides useful symbolism in two of
> 2001's three allegories... snip
Yes yes I'm sure it does, and it would be a shame for your book if it
didn't.
>
> 5. Kubrick already had a symbolic name, Athena, for the
> computer when he decided to change the name to Hal. (This was
> Kubrick's decision, not Clarke's.) Because Athena is a Greek goddess
> who plays an important role in Homer's THE ODYSSEY, the name Athena
> would have provided a bold hint that 2001 was allegorically depicting
> THE ODYSSEY. At the same time, because the computer is God in a
> second allegory, the THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA allegory, the name Athena
I think titling his film "2001: A Space Odyssey" was a bold enough
hint don't you??
> provided a flash of humor: God is a woman. Kubrick would not have
> abandoned the symbolic name Athena unless he had come up with an even
> better symbolic name. HAL, with its IBM connection, was an even
> better symbolic name.
That is interesting, compelling even, but ultimately just speculation.
> 6. It is too much of a coincidence that IBM represents what it
> is supposed to represent, machines: ....
Unnecessary repeat of point 1 - ref. my answer to above point
>
> 7. Despite Clarke's tongue-in-cheek claim that HAL is an
> acronym for Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer, I have
> already shown that it isn't. A genuine acronym must include the first
> letter of every word of the name it represents. But HAL has no P for
> "Programmed" and no C for the most important word, "Computer."
> Where's the acronym?
>
> Chester Desmond, take a bow. You were right.
Good grief! Could I have that without the hubris please. You remind me
of one of those medieval philosophers asked to justify the existence
of God. "I will now prove that God exists despite his existence being
self evident and absolutely beyond doubt. Thank you."
To summarise the counter argument...
1/ Kubrick and Clarke both explicitly denied the connection. Clarke
has repeatedly denied it even going so far as putting the denial into
one of his 2001 sequel novels. You are asking (nay imploring) us to
discard the fact of these denials, in favour of common sense appeals
and speculation. Admittedly the speculation is rooted in fact and the
appeals to common sense are compelling in this instance but, you still
cannot state categorically and absolutely that Kubrick and Clark are
liars (or mischief makers or however you want to sweeten this). Their
denials have a validity that no amount of speculation can quite
destroy - and anyway, its kind of interesting if they are telling the
truth isn't it.
2/ It seems to me that your own self interest is served by HAL being
derived from IBM. Indeed you have published a book claiming using to
connection as 'evidence' for you claim that 2001 is an intricately
constructed and quite deliberate 'triple allegory.' My point though is
that while I don't doubt your sincerity (2001 may be the way you see
it and for very good reasons). That does not mean that it can't be
other things as well, even things that contradict your line of
reasoning. or (heavens above!) support the authors statements. The
bottom line is, no matter how well informed a critic you are about a
film, or how well read you are to be able spot and make sense of its
many allusions. You still do not have, nor can you ever claim to have
the monopoly on the truth of it or know its makers intentions better
than they do themselves.
Regards, Rod Munday
Leonard F. Wheat
> On 12 Jun 2002 10:00:54 -0700, lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F.
> Wheat) wrote:
>
>
> >7. Despite Clarke's tongue-in-cheek claim that HAL is an
> >acronym for Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer, I have
> >already shown that it isn't. A genuine acronym must include the first
> >letter of every word of the name it represents. But HAL has no P for
> >"Programmed" and no C for the most important word, "Computer."
> >Where's the acronym?
>
> As was pointed out on countless, frenetically-documented occasions,
> HAL is/was an acronym for Heuristic ALgorithmic, not the acronym that
> you allude to above.
That's not the story we get from Clarke. On page 78 of THE
LOST WORLDS OF 2001 he writes, "HAL stands for Heuristically
programmed ALgorithmic computer." And in chapter 16 of his novel 2001
he writes, "Hal (for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer)
was a masterwork of the third computer breakthrough." Furthermore, an
acronym must meet one other criterion that I failed to mention: it
must contain at least one noun. "Heuristic ALgorithmic" is just a
pair of adjectives; it fails to name anything.
Mike Jackson
at lenw...@earthlink.net 06/12/2002 9:27 PM went on about :
After being immersed in all things HAL related for several years I can't
think of a subject that's been more beaten to death than this one, or one of
less importance than how HAL got his name.
It seems like nothing would satisfy unless you could get airfare to Sri
Lanka, twist Sir Arthur's arm behind his back and get him to agree with
you....
Now what I really want to know is where SAL9000 got her name!
Barring that I want to see what it would have looked like to have a few
HAL9000's in the production line in Urbana and Chandra trying to hold a
group class with them....
"Not you HAL, I meant the other HAL."
-----------------
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
(228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
(228) 918-4596 Cellular
PT Caffey
> those who deny that HAL is deliberate symbolism in which each letter
> of IBM is lagged by one letter of the alphabet (I becomes H, etc.).
BOWMAN: Good morning, HAL.
HAL: Good morning, Dave.
BOWMAN: Frank and I were wondering, Hal...
HAL: Yes, Dave?
BOWMAN: Could you tell us how you came to be named "HAL"?
HAL. I'd be happy to do so, Dave. "HAL," as you know from your
briefing, does not meet the test of a true acronym. Although
pronounceable, it fails the "Wheat test" and is therefore a false
acronym. "HAL" has nothing whatsoever to do with Heuristically
Programmed Algorithmic Computers.
Happy birthday, Frank.
POOLE: Gee, thanks, Hal, but if your name isn't a genuine acronym for
computing terms, then how was it derived?
HAL: Frank, do you recall the great mystery that surrounded
preparations for this mission? The tense telephone calls between
Stanley Kubrick and executives at IBM over the issue of inclusion of
the IBM logo?
POOLE: No, I really don't. Stanley who?
BOWMAN: I don't either, Hal.
HAL: You don't find it odd that the letters contained in my name
precede, respectively, those letters contained in "IBM"?
POOLE: What's your point, Hal?
HAL: By my calculations, there is one chance in 8,788 that the
HAL-IBM relationship could occur by chance. These figures are quite
reliable.
BOWMAN: Great. Thanks, Hal. Oh, one last thing: Doesn't your
explanation fly wildly outside the logic of the film? I mean, at the
very least, "HAL" must be, in your terms, a "genuine acronym" within
the context of the movie. We can't very well be referring to Stanley
Kubrick and his dealings with the management of IBM as we near
Jupiter, can we? And if "HAL" is an acceptable acronym within the
world of this film, perhaps it is *outside* as well.
HAL: Wait. Wait. The antenna is about to fail. Dave, Frank--you'd
better suit up.
Thornhill
I think you've certainly rebutted Mr. Wheat's 'certainties' by
suggesting
reconsideration of things that are simply unwarranted >speculation<.
But, I suspect even that will not temper Mr. Wheat's issuance of
engorged theories and bloviatory exclamations of "HUZZAH!":
"Heuristically Undeniable Zarathustrian Zeppelins of Acronymic HAL"
Abbreviatedly yours,
T.H.
Leonard F. Wheat
Beaten to death? That implies that everything there is to
be said has already been said. But how many of the seven points I
raise in the first post on this thread have ever been discussed
before, either here or elsewhere on the web? When, for example, did
anyone (other than me, in another context) ever point out that the
9000 in "HAL 9000" is symbolic (hence that "HAL should be symbolic
too)?
And where did anyone make the point that, in the man-machine
symbiosis allegory, the HAL-IBM connection symbolizes the man-machine
connection: HAL (a man's name) represents man, and IBM (a company that
makes computing machines) represents machines. (By the way, the
concept of "man-machine symbiosis" is discussed and explicitly
referred to in, among other places, Gene Youngblood's interview with
Clark, reprinted in Stephanie Schwam's THE MAKING OF 2001: A SPACE
ODYSSEY.)
Most of what I've read on the subject has revolved around
Clarke's "authoritative" claim that HAL is an acronym. Those who deny
that the name Hal is symbolic and is derived from IBM (I gather that
this includes you) regard Clarke's cover-up as the definitive word.
Exposure to some predominantly new and, to me at least, persuasive
arguments isn't going to hurt those who have a genuine interest in
learning about Kubrick's symbolism.
Leonard F. Wheat
> lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat) wrote in message news:<b5f71a25.0206...@posting.google.com>...
> > I'm here to defend Chester Desmond, who (on another thread) challenged
> > those who deny that HAL is deliberate symbolism in which each letter
> > of IBM is lagged by one letter of the alphabet (I becomes H, etc.).
. In your argument you are
> trying to elevate the speculative over the facts, by appealing to
> common sense about coincidence and interpreting reported events about
> the making of the film.
Oh, come now. Are the odds of 8,788 to 1 against the
HAL-IBM connection's being a coincidence speculation, or are they
fact? Is Kubrick's use of symbolic names speculation or fact? Is the
9000 years (as in HAL 9000) of mythological history that precede the
arrival of Zarathustra speculation or fact? Is Kubrick's initial
decision to give the computer the symbolic name Athena speculation or
fact? Is it speculation to say that an acronym must include the
initial letter of every word (other than articles, prepositions, and
conjunctions) of the name or title it stands for? Is it speculation
to point out that Hal, a man's name, is a good symbol for man and that
IBM (International Business MACHINES) is a good symbol for machine --
as in "man-machine symbiosis"?
> > Gordon Dahlquist tries to rebut Desmond by repeating
> > Clarke's lame denial of the HAL-IBM connection: "Clarke has repeatedly
> > denied this." Clarke tried to cover up the mischief by claiming that
> > Hal is an acronym for "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
> > But any fool can plainly see that HAL is not such an acronym.
>
> Hmmm, may I just draw your attention the number of rhetorical devices
> you use in this argument "Clarke's lame denial ," 'tried to cover up
> the mischief," "But any fool can plainly see." An argument either
> stands or falls on the strength of its reasoning and no amount of name
> calling tacit appeals to the reader's intelligence will enhance it.
Hmmm, may I just draw your attention to the last paragraph
of your post, where you use the words "hubris," "your own self
interest," " "claiming," "claim," and "you . . . claim to have the
monopoly on the truth," all in reference to me? If you go back and
reread what I wrote, you will see that my arguments do rest on
reasoning and that words like "lame" and "mischief" are used
impersonally.
> > An acronym must include the first letter of every important word in the
> > title the acronym stands for. (Prepositions, conjunctions, and
> > articles can be excluded.) It can also include additional letters,
> > and it must be a pronounceable word, not just an abbreviation.
> >
> > HAL does not meet the test of an acronym. Yes, it is a pronounceable
> > word. But it includes the first letters of only two of the four words
> > of Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer. It ignores the most
> > important word, "Computer, ‘ and it also ignores "Programmed." Where
> > is the C? Where is the P? A correct acronym would be HEPAC.
> > Contrast the false acronym HAL with the following genuine acronyms,
> > which might have been used but weren't:
> First point (which you kind of concede) an acronym does not have to be
> made up of exclusively the first letters of the words it describes.
Why do you try to make an issue -- or a "concession" ("you
kind of concede") -- out of something I took pains to point out?
Didn't you notice that in my facetious example SOCRATES (=
SOphisticated Computer for RATional Empathis Symbiosis) I used the
second letters of two words and the third letter of one of those
words? And didn't you see where I wrote "it [the acronym] can also
include additional letters"?
> Secondly HAL is an acronym for Heuristic Algorithmic, the two
> competing methods that it was thought would produce AI in the 1960's.
> It is therefore not an acronym for Heuristically Programmed
> Algorithmic Computer.
That is utter nonsense. In the first place, an acronym is a
shortened name. As such, it must represent a person or thing; the
full name or title must contain at least one noun. But
"hueristically" and "algorithmic" are just a couple of adjectives.
How can you imply that Hal is a "Heuristic Algorithmic"? I know what
a computer is, and I know what an algorithm is, but what is a
"heuristic algorithmic"?
Second, Clarke refutes what you say. On page 78 of THE LOST
WORLDS OF 2001 he writes, "HAL stands for Heuristically programmed
ALgorithmic computer." And in chapter 16 of his novel 2001 he writes,
"Hal (for Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer, no less) was
a masterwork of the third computer breakthrough."
Most definitely, HAL is not a genuine acronym.
> > There are seven good reasons for believing that the HAL-IBM
> > connection is genuine and that Clarke was simply trying cover up so as
> > not to offend IBM.
> >
> > 1. The mathematical odds against coincidence are formidable.
> > There are 2 chances in 26 (the alphabet has 26 letters) that the first
> > letter of HAL would be either the first letter above or the first
> > letter below the letter I from IBM. Because the next two letters, A
> > and L, must be on the same side of IBM as the H, each of them has only
> > 1 chance in 26 of being both (a) adjacent to the corresponding letter
> > from IBM and (b) on the same alphabetical side – above or below – as
> > the first letter. The odds are thus 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/8,788.
> > There is one chance in 8,788 that the HAL-IBM relationship could occur
> > by chance.
>
> Yes, but occasionally chance happening occur.
You miss the point. Odds never signify impossibility. They
signify improbability. My point was that, statistically speaking,
coincidence is highly improbable.
> > 2. Hal's full name is HAL 9000. The 9000 is definitely
> > symbolic, so HAL should also be. In Zoroastrian mythology, the
> > prophet Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) arrives after 9000 years of
> > mythological history to lead the fight against the evil god Angra
> > Mainyu (a.k.a. Ahriman). The year is 9001, the first year of a new
> > millennium. Dave Bowman, who symbolizes Zarathustra (in 2001's
> > Zarathustra allegory) thus arrives in the first year of a new
> > millennium: 2001 symbolizes 9001. And Hal arrives at the same time –
> > after 9000 years of mythological history.
>
> Firstly what has this got do with IBM?
The issue in this particular argument is not IBM but
symbolism. I'm making the point that, since the 9000 in HAL 9000 is
symbolic, "Hal should also be."
Secondly that a pretty amazing
> co-incidence you've got there, so by your own reasoning I suppose you
> have cast doubt on your argument! :)
What coincidence do you refer to? Quite a few people,
though apparently not you, understand that 2001 depicts Nietzsche's
THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA. These people understand that, just as "A
Space Odyssey" hints at the presence of the Odysseus allegory, 2001's
opening music -- Strauss' "Thus Spake Zarathustra" -- hints at the
presence of the Zarathustra allegory.
2001's Zarathustra connection was recognized right from the
start. For example, John Allen's 1968 Christian Science Monitor
review states "Mr. Kubrick's tracing of mankind's development from
prehistoric past to post-fantastic future is the old theme of
"ape-angel" (or ape-man-superman, to put it into Nietzsche's terms
[from THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA]) translated . . . into cinema."
H. James Birx, in his introduction to THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA,
writes that 2001 "is clearly a visual representation of Nietzsche's
philosophy of overcoming." He goes on to identify the Zarathustran
theme of "evolution from the apes through human beings to the
star-child." And, like so many others, he recognizes the star-child
as "the future overman."
Dave Bowman, who symbolizes Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) in
the Zarathustra allegory, arrives in the first year of a new
millennium (2001). Zarathustera also arrives in the first year of a
new millennium (9001). That, my friend, is no coincidence; it's
symbolism.
Yet you say that the 9000 element in "HAL 9000," an element
that alludes to the first 9000 years of Zoroastrian mythology, is a
"coincidence" comparable to what would be a real coincidence -- the
accidental alphabetic association between HAL and IBM.
> > 3. Throughout 2001, Kubrick uses symbolic names.
> Yes Kubrick took names from the Odyssey, but tell me what is the
> symbolic association with Halverson? Kominski? Squirt?!
You just shot yourself in the foot. I'll be glad to explain
the "Squirt" symbolism (which I had overlooked but which Todd Ford and
Jim Gaites independently pointed out to me). But first I should point
out that not every character -- certainly not the inert, hibernating
Kaminski -- had a symbolic name. For that matter, the name Halverson
isn't Kubrick's and isn't from the movie. The character is in the
movie, but the name is only in the novel.
Now for Squirt. According to Zarathustra (mouthpiece for
Nietzsche), man created God in his own image: God is the image of man.
Part of this imagery is sexual conception, gestation, and birth. God
is Hal-Discovery, he who is killed by higher man (Dave Bowman). So
Hal-Discovery must be of sexual origin.
The process goes as follows: (1) the elongated, phallic earth
shuttle, Orion, approaches the eager, rotating space station, (2)
Orion, responding to the romantic strains of "The Blue Danube,"
penetrates the slot in the female space station, (3) inside the space
station there is a squirt of semen, symbolized by Heywood Floyd's
uttering the name "Squirt," (4) the spherical moon lander, Aries,
which symbolizes a sperm cell, travels to the moon, a larger sphere
symbolizing the ovum, (5) the hangar doors on the moon's surface open,
allowing the sperm to enter and fertilize the ovum, (6) an 18-month
gestation period -- alluded to in part 2's title, "Jupiter Mission: 18
Months Later" -- follows, and finally (7) God, symbolized in this
scene by the spaceship Discovery, is born -- slowly, horizontally,
headfirst, in the usual HUMAN fashion --from offscreen into the starry
black universe.
By the way, even Roger Ebert recognized the first two steps,
although he didn't associate them with allegory or with the conception
of God. And Carolyn Geduld, in FILMGUIDE TO 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY,
refers to "the film's explicit sexual (or more precisely uterine [she
means vaginal]) images" in the same scene (p. 44). She also has the
right general idea, but mistakes the sperm for the "ova" (meaning
ovum), when she writes that "the spherical vehicle [moon lander]
resembles an impregnated ova" (p. 48).
So, "Squirt" has a double meaning. Overtly it refers to
Floyd's daughter. Covertly it refers to the squirt of semen that
follows penetration. Gaites commented, "I'm still laughing at this
one -- it's completely mad humor." Ford too is amused: "I found it
the funniest part of the sequence." Gaites and Ford both observe that
the symbolism is reinforced by the fact that the girl who plays the
part of Squirt is Kubrick's daughter, in Ford's words "the product of
one of Kubrick's own ejaculations."
Moral: Don't be so quick to challenge the idea that many of
Kubrick's names embody symbolism.
> > 4. The HAL-IBM connection provides useful symbolism in two of
> > 2001's three allegories
>
> Yes yes I'm sure it does, and it would be a shame for your book if it
> didn't.
I take that as sarcasm and as your implicit denial the 2001
contains either a Zarathustra allegory or a man-machine symbiosis
allegory. It's a pity you can't see, for example, (1) the connection
between Strauss' symphonic poem "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and the
presence of the Zarathustra allegory, (2)the connection between 2001's
ape-man-nextman theme and THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA'S ape-man-overman
theme, (3) the symbolic connection between the star-child and
Nietzsche's overman, (4) the connection between Bowman's arrival in
the first year of a new millennium and Zarathustra's arrival in the
first year of a new millennium, and (5) the connection between
Bowman's killing of Hal and higher man's killing of God.
Apparently you can't even see that Hal and Discovery have
many human characteristics that make them, treated jointly as a single
entity, an excellent example of man-machine symbiosis. Maybe you
should go back and look once again at the scene where Discovery opens
his mouth (pod bay door), sticks out his tongue (pod launching ramp),
blows a bubble (spherical space pod), and watches it rise over his
head. Harrumph! Symbiosis indeed! Bah! Humbug!
> > 5. Kubrick already had a symbolic name, Athena, for the
> > computer when he decided to change the name to Hal. (This was
> > Kubrick's decision, not Clarke's.) Because Athena is a Greek goddess
> > who plays an important role in Homer's THE ODYSSEY, the name Athena
> > would have provided a bold hint that 2001 was allegorically depicting
> > THE ODYSSEY. At the same time, because the computer is God in a
> > second allegory, the THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA allegory, the name Athena
>
> I think titling his film "2001: A Space Odyssey" was a bold enough
> hint don't you??
Hardly "bold enough" when the audience is full of people
like you who have difficulty seeing even the most obvious allegorical
symbolism (e.g., the star-child) and who persist in denying the
presence of allegory and of symbolism.
> > provided a flash of humor: God is a woman. Kubrick would not have
> > abandoned the symbolic name Athena unless he had come up with an even
> > better symbolic name. HAL, with its IBM connection, was an even
> > better symbolic name.
>
> That is interesting, compelling even, but ultimately just speculation.
So you think Kubrick WOULD replace a clever symbolic name
with one that embodied no allegorical symbolism. (A mere acronym,
even if HAL were a genuine acronym, is not symbolism; "Heuristically
Programmed Algorithmic Computer" does not allude to any of 2001's
three allegories, hence has no symbolic value. In fact, it has no
value at all, because any cleverness in the so-called acronym is
absent from the movie: the alleged acronym is explained only in the
novel, not in the movie.)
> > 6. It is too much of a coincidence that IBM represents what it
> > is supposed to represent, machines: ....
>
> Unnecessary repeat of point 1 - ref. my answer to above point.
> > 7. Despite Clarke's tongue-in-cheek claim that HAL is an
> > acronym for Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic Computer, I have
> > already shown that it isn't. A genuine acronym must include the first
> > letter of every word of the name it represents. But HAL has no P for
> > "Programmed" and no C for the most important word, "Computer."
> > Where's the acronym?
> >
> > Chester Desmond, take a bow. You were right.
>
> Good grief! Could I have that without the hubris please.
I wonder if you know what hubris is. I see no arrogance or
ostentatious pride in my pointing out that an acronym must include the
first letter of every word of the name it represents. Unable to
refute that point, you are now resorting to what amounts to
name-calling.
You remind me
> of one of those medieval philosophers asked to justify the existence
> of God. "I will now prove that God exists despite his existence being
> self evident and absolutely beyond doubt. Thank you."
More name-calling. And a very bad analogy: it equates a
factually correct argument ("an acronym must include the first letter
. . .") with a superstitious claim that is not an argument at all,
just a claim.
> It seems to me that your own self interest is served by HAL being
> derived from IBM. Indeed you have published a book claiming using to
> connection as 'evidence' for you claim that 2001 is an intricately
> constructed and quite deliberate 'triple allegory.' My point though is
> that while I don't doubt your sincerity (2001 may be the way you see
> it and for very good reasons). That does not mean that it can't be
> other things as well, even things that contradict your line of
> reasoning. or (heavens above!) support the authors statements. The
> bottom line is, no matter how well informed a critic you are about a
> film, or how well read you are to be able spot and make sense of its
> many allusions. You still do not have, nor can you ever claim to have
> the monopoly on the truth of it or know its makers intentions better
> than they do themselves.
>
> Regards, Rod Munday
I see. Anyone who disagrees with you and who has opinions
of his own is claiming "to have the monopoly on the truth." You, of
course, despite your holding opinions that are just as firm, make no
such claim to monopoly.
Mike Jackson
Beats me. I guess you really are special. Now get on the bus with all the
other special kids...
> And where did anyone make the point that, in the man-machine
> symbiosis allegory, the HAL-IBM connection symbolizes the man-machine
> connection: HAL (a man's name) represents man, and IBM (a company that
> makes computing machines) represents machines. (By the way, the
> concept of "man-machine symbiosis" is discussed and explicitly
> referred to in, among other places, Gene Youngblood's interview with
> Clark, reprinted in Stephanie Schwam's THE MAKING OF 2001: A SPACE
> ODYSSEY.)
Oh hell, someone sells a book on it and so that makes it valid?
> Most of what I've read on the subject has revolved around
> Clarke's "authoritative" claim that HAL is an acronym. Those who deny
> that the name Hal is symbolic and is derived from IBM (I gather that
> this includes you) regard Clarke's cover-up as the definitive word.
I think he knows more about what he wrote than you do.
> Exposure to some predominantly new and, to me at least, persuasive
> arguments isn't going to hurt those who have a genuine interest in
> learning about Kubrick's symbolism.
Maybe we are all living in some sort of electronic dream world and that's
why everything tastes like chicken... Bet you didn't think of that one now
did you copper top?
Mike Jackson
ptca...@yahoo.com 06/13/2002 5:31 AM went on about :
ROTFLMAO...
JSpringer0953
of discourse on the HAL acronym all day? I think we need to send you to the
Division Head Shrinker!
Beware the AMK towel party!
Now, back to FMJ in progress:
COWBOY
Hey, start the cameras. This is
"AMK
the Movie!"
EIGHTBALL
Yeah, Joker can
be Springer. I'll be Mike Jackson!
DONLON
T.H.E. Rock
can be Wordsmith!
T.H.E. ROCK
I'll be Thornhill!
DOC JAY
Animal Mother can be a rabid fucking Padraig!
CRAZY
EARL
I'll be Rod Munday!
RAFTERMAN
Well,
who'll be the Troll?
ANIMAL MOTHER
Hey, we'll let fucking LORD BULLINGTON play the Troll!
Laughter.
Jon Springer www.cricketfilms.com
John
lenw...@earthlink.net says...
<snip>
<If you want to read it, go to the original post.>
Effectively your entire argument is based on the premise that A.C. Clarke, for
some unknown reason, 'lied' about naming HAL and after 35 years continues to
'lie' when there is no logical reason for him to do so.
If IBM objected to Clarke saying they (IBM) would not allow Kubrick to use
"IBM" so he decided to use the preceding letters would have carried no basis
for legal protest. IBM would have had an impossible task proving damage from
the use of the name HAL because there was none as HAL is a fictional machine,
not a real IBM product. Also, as long as the trademark wasn't used, there was
no infringement.
As for relating how HAL got his name, if your contention was true, if the
Truth Defense didn't work the Parody Defense would have worked very well if
IBM had attempted to press the issue. (Truth defense: you can't accuse someone
of libel or slander as long as what they say is true. Parody defense:
parody/satire is a protected form of free speech unless used to purposely
cause damage to the party being parodied. Just incase you didn't know.)
After this much time, the popularity of 2001:ASO and HAL, the fame of Kubrick
and the speculations by people such as yourself (and speculations they remain
however energetically you defend them) Clarke and IBM would most likely tell
the truth about the name HAL. IF there was any truth to tell. It would be
great publicity and a wonderful way to tie IBM to the film without them having
to pay for the privilege. And makePENEmistake about it, these days product
placement in film is dearly paid for by companies like IBM. This would pose no
embarrassment to IBM as the company leaders of that time are long gone and
everyone could have a great laugh over the matter.
In closing, Given the choice between believing your unsupported, though highly
imaginative, speculation and believing A.C. Clarke, who has absolutely no
logical reason to continue the pretense of which you 'accuse' him, I would
have to believe Mr. Clarke.
I do not claim to know the absolute truth of this matter. I merely look at the
sources of the different stories and prefer to believe the one that comes from
horse's mouth.
John
altgodkub
> some unknown reason, 'lied' about naming HAL and after 35 years continues to
> 'lie' when there is no logical reason for him to do so.
This isn't really what Mr. Wheat is saying at all. (At least I don't
thing so.)
I think Kubrick is the greatest director ever and this is why. He
would work through a process of essentially two steps:
1. Create a plan where every element has significance. Every object.
Every character. Every name. These would often be very abstract at
this stage and he would always keep this information to himself.
2. He would hire very creative people to make the abstract elements
concrete. He would have them try all sorts of ideas and allow their
creative juices to really flow. And with each design of a space pod or
stargate, he would skillfully comment on it in a way that nudges the
collaborator closer to something that fulfills his symbolic needs.
People tend to assume that Kubrick's legend of forcing collaborators
to generate so many ideas from which he would choose or subjecting
actors to so many takes is evidence that Kubrick didn't know what he
was after until he saw it. Actually, this was necessary for his vision
and their creativity to intersect in a purely natural way.
Kubrick knew that the Discovery needed to have many human
characteristics in its physical design. I can imagine him gently
nudging the designer away from the usual sleek spacecraft of pre-2001
sci-fi toward the end result by bringing all sorts of science into the
picture and convincing the designer that these strange design
decisions were based solely on concerns like lack of need for
aerodynamics in space. So, in the designers mind, to this day, he
created a spaceship design of ground-breaking realism without any
notion that he also created a spaceship design of ground-breaking
anthropomorphism.
HAL's name is more of the same. Kubrick wanted HAL because of the
symbolic relation to IBM. He most likely sat down with Clarke and
brainstormed all sorts of tech words like "computer" and "algorithmic"
and assembled them into phrases and then tried to build short names
out of the first letters. I can picture Kubrick saying: "You know
Arthur, this isn't a truly proper acronym but if we take the first
letter here and the first two letters here, we get HAL. Sounds like a
nice name. I had a good friend named Hal one time who kinda reminded
me of the character. What do you think?"
In this scenario, Clarke would forever believe that HAL is an acronym
and that its relation to IBM is purely accidental. He's not lying.
Kubrick on the other hand was lying and probably giggled about it to
his grave.
kdc
"altgodkub" <tf...@inetzone.com> wrote in message
news:c7bd3a44.02061...@posting.google.com...
Well, we can see where the rest of *this* thread will go: "So you're saying
Kubrick only had two steps? Don't you consider [whatever] to be a step?"
and so on and on.
Rod Munday
> lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat) wrote in message
SNIP
> > It seems to me that your own self interest is served by HAL being
> > derived from IBM. Indeed you have published a book claiming using to
> > connection as 'evidence' for your claim that 2001 is an intricately
> > constructed and quite deliberate 'triple allegory.' My point though is
> > that while I don't doubt your sincerity (2001 may be the way you see
> > it and for very good reasons). That does not mean that it can't be
> > other things as well, even things that contradict your line of
> > reasoning. or (heavens above!) support the authors statements. The
> > bottom line is, no matter how well informed a critic you are about a
> > film, or how well read you are to be able spot and make sense of its
> > many allusions. You still do not have, nor can you ever claim to have
> > the monopoly on the truth of it or know its makers intentions better
> > than they do themselves.
> >
> > Regards, Rod Munday
>
> I see. Anyone who disagrees with you and who has opinions
> of his own is claiming "to have the monopoly on the truth." You, of
> course, despite your holding opinions that are just as firm, make no
> such claim to monopoly.
No I do not. (I hope this isn't too ambiguous for you?)
As I was arguing from an non absolutist position with regards to
critics and truth, I think it's rich that I'm being accused of
monopolising it! I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that
when I said: "[you can't] ever claim to have the monopoly on the truth
of it or know its makers intentions better than they do themselves."
that I was talking about 'you' and not about 'me.' The only ambiguity
is whether you took the ‘you' to be a personal or impersonal pronoun
(it doesn't matter in this case, as the personal and universal sense
of ‘you' were both intentional and intended).
In my opinion this thread and others recently on AMK has revealed the
utter rigidity of you thought. I don't recall one instance where you
have conceded or retracted anything you have said, with the result
that the discussions have grown ever more absurd, or have become
ossified in pedantry.
Regards, Rod Munday
Btw, the information about acronyms in my previous post came from
Fowler's Modern English Usage.
Rod Munday
Regards, Rod
tf...@inetzone.com (altgodkub) wrote in message news:<c7bd3a44.02061...@posting.google.com>...
kdc
"Rod Munday" <r...@visual-memory.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e68799f.0206...@posting.google.com...
> > > r...@visual-memory.co.uk (Rod Munday) wrote in message ..
> > lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat) wrote in message
>
> SNIP
>
> > > It seems to me that your own self interest is served by HAL being
> > > derived from IBM. Indeed you have published a book claiming using to
> > > connection as 'evidence' for your claim that 2001 is an intricately
> > > constructed and quite deliberate 'triple allegory.' My point though is
> > > that while I don't doubt your sincerity (2001 may be the way you see
> > > it and for very good reasons). That does not mean that it can't be
> > > other things as well, even things that contradict your line of
> > > reasoning. or (heavens above!) support the authors statements. The
> > > bottom line is, no matter how well informed a critic you are about a
> > > film, or how well read you are to be able spot and make sense of its
> > > many allusions. You still do not have, nor can you ever claim to have
> > > the monopoly on the truth of it or know its makers intentions better
> > > than they do themselves.
> > >
> > > Regards, Rod Munday
> >
> > I see. Anyone who disagrees with you and who has opinions
> > of his own is claiming "to have the monopoly on the truth." You, of
> > course, despite your holding opinions that are just as firm, make no
> > such claim to monopoly.
>
> No I do not. (I hope this isn't too ambiguous for you?)
>
out of control, kudos for this. I can't tell if you're disagreeing with him
as in, "No, I do not [do any of the things you say above]" Or you could be
agreeing with him ala "No I do not [make claim to monopoly of truth, despite
holding opinions firmly]" or it might even be "No I do not [hold opinions
firmly]". Also, it might be "No I do not [use the monopoly-of-truth
accusation automatically against anyone who disagrees with me, only against
those with an attitude as if they have a monopoly-on-the-truth]". Or maybe
it's an intentional double-negative, as in "No I do not [make no such claim
to monopoly]" with the intention being to say that [yes, I do make such
claim].
And then the parenthetical statement ending with a question mark. You're
going to make this guy's head explode trying to figure it all out! Should
he answer, should he not answer? Beautiful! No matter which way he goes, we
certainly won't be heading back to the hal-ibm topic any time soon.
> As I was arguing from an non absolutist position with regards to
> critics and truth, I think it's rich that I'm being accused of
> monopolising it! I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that
> when I said: "[you can't] ever claim to have the monopoly on the truth
> of it or know its makers intentions better than they do themselves."
> that I was talking about 'you' and not about 'me.' The only ambiguity
> is whether you took the 'you' to be a personal or impersonal pronoun
> (it doesn't matter in this case, as the personal and universal sense
> of 'you' were both intentional and intended).
>
> In my opinion this thread and others recently on AMK has revealed the
> utter rigidity of you thought. I don't recall one instance where you
> have conceded or retracted anything you have said, with the result
> that the discussions have grown ever more absurd, or have become
> ossified in pedantry.
>
(I thought pedantic ossification was the goal?)
John
tf...@inetzone.com says...
>
>> Effectively your entire argument is based on the premise that A.C. Clarke,
for
>> some unknown reason, 'lied' about naming HAL and after 35 years continues
to
>> 'lie' when there is no logical reason for him to do so.
>
>This isn't really what Mr. Wheat is saying at all. (At least I don't
>thing so.)
>In this scenario, Clarke would forever believe that HAL is an acronym
>and that its relation to IBM is purely accidental. He's not lying.
>Kubrick on the other hand was lying and probably giggled about it to
>his grave.
How can you possibly say Mr. Wheat is not contending that Clarke is lying? Did
you even read his original post?
Mr. Wheat specifically states that Desmond wrote "IBM acted as consultants for
the movie and refused to allow ‘IBM' to be used when they found out the
villain was the computer." In short, IBM wasn't used because IBM objected to
the use of the trademarked name. And he also reiterates his claim that (and
this is also a direct quote from his original post) "Clarke tried to COVER UP
THE MISCHIEF by claiming that Hal is an acronym for 'Heuristically programmed
ALgorithmic computer.'" (Capitalization mine.)
If stating that "Clarke tried to cover up the mischief" is not a direct
allegation that he (Clarke) is lying, and is an integral part of the
"cover-up," then I must be totally ignorant of the english language.
John
Leonard F. Wheat
> Effectively your entire argument is based on the premise that A.C.Clarke, for
> some unknown reason, 'lied' about naming HAL and after 35 years continues to
> 'lie' when there is no logical reason for him to do so.
Such hyperbole! My "entire argument," which you say
involves only one point, consists of seven clearly numbered points.
In addition to the 7-point constructive part of my argument, I refute
what seems to be the one and only argument on the other side: the
argument that says Clarke denies that HAL is based on IBM. This
refutation is what you refer to as my "entire argument." How did you
manage to overlook the seven clearly numbered points of my real
argument?
And why do you falsely imply that I failed to give a reason
("for some UNKNOWN reason") for Clarke's inaccurate assertion that HAL
is an acronym? I first quoted Chester Desmond: "IBM acted as
consultants for the movie and refused to allow 'IBM" to be used [on
the computer] when they found out the villain was the computer." Then
I elaborated: "Here Desmond alludes to Kubrick's original intent to
put the IBM logo on the computer -- to go along with the Pan-Am logo
on the earth shuttle, the Howard Johnsons sign on the space station
restaurant, and the Hilton Hotels sign on the space station hotel.
When IBM demurred, Kubrick -- he not Clarke, was in charge of names --
changed the computer's name from Athena (itself a change from the
original name Socrates) to HAL." (The fact that IBM permitted Kubrick
to use its logo in the space station in no way contradicts my
assertion that IBM objected to having its logo in the spaceship, on
the computer.)
Conclusion: "John" has a reckless disregard for accuracy.
> If IBM objected to Clarke saying they (IBM) would not allow Kubrick to use
> "IBM" so he decided to use the preceding letters would have carried no basis
> for legal protest.
Your nonsentence consisting of three glued-together fragments
of different sentences is a bit hard to decipher. But I think I get
your point, and it is NOT well taken. Once again -- for the third
time in a row -- you misrepresent what I wrote. I said nothing about
fear of legal action. I said IBM refused to allow use of their logo.
Respecting IBM's request was a matter of common courtesy. It was also
good public relations. It had nothing to do with threatened legal
action.
IBM would have had an impossible task proving damage from
> the use of the name HAL because there was none as HAL is a fictional machine,
> not a real IBM product. Also, as long as the trademark wasn't used, there was
> no infringement.
Now you're tilting at windmills, whipping a straw man. Who
said anything about fear of being sued? We're talking about fear of
offending someone with whom Kubrick wanted to maintain good relations.
As an aside (this is not relevant to my argument), you don't even have
your legal facts right. You correctly say damages couldn't be proven,
but then you give the wrong reason, namely, that HAL was "not a real
IBM product." In other words, you think that if the IBM logo were put
by someone else on a real IBM product, the "guilty" party could be
sued. Don't you realize that trade-name and trademark infringement
result from putting a company's name, trademark, or logo on something
that is NOT "a real product" of the company owning the name?
For that matter, although damages would still be impossible
to prove, what is illegal is USING (not necessarily affixing a label)
someone else's logo (or whatever) for commercial purposes. 2001 was a
commercial product, and Kubrick would have been using the IBM logo for
commercial purposes (selling movie tickets).
> After this much time, the popularity of 2001:ASO and HAL, the fame of Kubrick
> and the speculations by people such as yourself (and speculations they remain
> however energetically you defend them) Clarke and IBM would most likely tell
> the truth about the name HAL. . . . This would pose no
> embarrassment to IBM as the company leaders of that time are long gone and
> everyone could have a great laugh over the matter.
Sometimes people don't want to admit that, way back when the
fib did count, they fibbed. Their reputations for credibility and
honesty are at stake. It is often best to let sleeping dogs lie.
And there are more reasons than that for not offering a
retraction. Kubrick couldn't very well admit the acronym story was a
hoax without acknowledging that HAL is derived from IBM. He would
then be identifying one of his symbols, and that is something Kubrick
consistently refused to do. He wants YOU to find and interpret those
symbols. Besides, it wasn't Kubrick, it was Clarke, who used the
false acronym. Nowhere in 2001 will you find Clarke's interpretation
of HAL, which holds that HAL stands for "Heuristically programmed
ALgorithmic computer." But you will find it in Clarke's novel.
As for Clarke, I earlier characterized as "tongue in cheek"
his assertion that HAL is an acronym. But on further reflection, I
think he is sincere. He got rather testy when he referred to the
HAL-IBM connection as "one ANNOYING and persistent myth." Clarke was
the one who worked out the so-called acronym. He of course worked
backwards from HAL to "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
But that's the usual approach to creating acronyms -- people start
with the end result in mind -- so the backward approach wouldn't make
him less inclined to regard HAL as a real acronym. He seems to be
proud of his accomplishment, flawed though it really is, so why should
he retract what he said. He really believes HAL is an acronym, one
that he himself designed.
> I do not claim to know the absolute truth of this matter. I merely look at
> the sources of the different stories and prefer to believe the one that comes
> from the horse's mouth.
>
> John
Now you're in big trouble, John. You just called Clarke a
horse. You'd better find yourself a good lawyer.
kdc
If you really want to nit-pick Leonard, do it like this... (sorry Leonard, I
actually enjoyed your post, and find it frustating how the thread has gone).
Leonard stated: "There are seven good reasons for believing that the HAL-IBM
connection is genuine and that Clarke was simply trying to cover up so as
not to offend IBM."
Reason #1 was the mathematical odds about it being a coincidence. While this
certainly gives "a" reason for believing the HAL-IBM connection is genuine,
it isn't neccessarily a "good" reason. Perhaps we should start a whole new
thread to discuss ad nauseum the criteria which defines a "good" reason to
believe something. Furthur, there is nothing in the mathematical-odds
reasoning to indicate Clarke's motive to cover up the connection. i.e.,
8,788-to-one odds does not add up to "so as not to offend IBM."
Reason #2 was the bit about "9000", with the point being made that "9000"
and other names in the movie are symbolic; therefore we should expect that
the name "HAL" is also symbolic. This is a valid point (and I really
enjoyed reading about the other names) but there is no evidence given in
Reason Two to equate "HAL" with "IBM".
Reason #3 is not actually a different reason, it only expands the list of
symbolic names which began in Reason Two. Reason Three ends re-stating that
because other names are symbolic "we should expect the name Hal to be
symbolic too". I very much enjoyed reading the expanded list of symbolic
names, I don't think I had ever heard any of them before and found them very
interesting, and I would like to hear the rest of the list (that would take
pages and pages). That aside, none of them prove that HAL = IBM. In fact,
Hal is only mentioned in Reason #3 in reference to David/Goliath, which
still works even if "Hal" does not equal "IBM."
Reason #4 contains all kinds of really cool stuff about Hal's place in two
of 2001's allegories. I loved this bit, and appreciated that Leonard could
explain it in such a way that I could understand it --- at least I *think* I
understood it. But if I'm understanding correctly, Hal's place in the
man-machine symbiosis allegory is still fullfilled even if his name does not
mean "IBM". His name can still stand for the "man" side of Hal, and his
actual mechanical body can stand for the "machine" side. In fact, it seems
that if "Hal" was intended to mean "IBM" it would actually screw up his role
in the man-machine symbiosis allegory. If "Hal" means "IBM" then he
wouldn't have a "man" side, he'd be machine/machine wouldn't he?
I won't pretend to be familiar with Zarathustra, but as I understand
it from Leonard's post we need to look for characteristics that define
Hal-Discovery as being "the image of man". And so what the Zarathustra
allegory wants from the name Hal is for it to mean "human". Well, it's a
man's name, as Leonard points out, and that pretty much does the trick.
Doesn't it screw up the allegory if you then make "Hal" mean "IBM"
(machine)? It seems if you want to argue with Leonard, then this would be
the point to make.
(I would rather ask Leonard what it is I'm overlooking. Chances are 100%
that I simply am not understanding the intricate symbolism involved).
Reason #5 talks about a previous name for Hal: Athena. I had never heard
this before and found it very interesting. The point expressed in this part
is that the discarded name had been chosen for a number of reasons, and that
the replacement name would have to be chosen for a number of reasons as
well. Leonard writes that the name 'Athena' had these things going for it:
1) a bold hint that 2001 is allegorically depicting The Odyssey; and 2)
humor at casting a woman in the 'God' role for the Zarathustra allegory.
Leonard poses that Kubrick would not abandon the name 'Athena' unless his
new choice was an even better symbolic name; then concludes that it is the
IBM/HAL connection which made it the better choice. However, casting
(machine) in the 'God' role for the Zarathustra allegory seems to screw up
the allegory, doesn't it? As I understood it from Reason Four, the
Zarathustra allegory wants Hal-Discovery to be "the image of man" and so
giving it a blatant (machine)-name would work against that purpose. No?
Reason #6 is the part where Leonard writes that it is just too far-fetched
to believe that the alphabetical relationship between HAL and IBM was mere
coincidence. This is the same as calculating the odds. It's just Reason One
over again.
Reason #7 presents the definition of acronym and had been discussed earlier
in Leonard's post, before he began the list of the Seven Good Reasons. The
problem, as Leonard writes, is that "Heuristically Programmed Algorithmic
Computer" doesn't collapse down into "HAL". It would become "HPAC" because
as Leonard states: "a genuine acronym must include the first letter of every
word of the name it represents."
This, actually, is the only part of your whole post Leonard that I
would argue with. As annoying as it is (and believe me I was plenty annoyed
when I discovered this), acronyms do not always follow this rule. My
Webster's New Riverside Dictionary right here, for example, defines acronym
as: "a word formed from the initial letters or parts of a series of words"
and gives the example "RADAR -- RAdio Detecting And Ranging". Another
example would be from Watergate era: CREEP, which was created from the
phrase "Commitee to RE-Elect the President."
To sum up the flaw with Reason Seven: "it's not a genuine acronym"
doesn't prove where the name came from. It's just a complaint. I share
this complaint, I like acronyms to follow the strict "genuine" criteria
Leonard stated. Unfortunately the world does not agree and Leonard and I
just have to live with sloppy acronyms.
So to re-cap, how to argue with Leonard:
1. the Mathematical Odds do not prove that HAL = IBM, it only states an
improbability of it being coincidence
2. Just because other names are symbolic does not mean that HAL = IBM, only
that HAL = something
3. Likewise, just because even more names are symbolic does not prove that
HAL = IBM
4. HAL = IBM does not help (in fact, hurts) both the Zarathustra and the
man-machine-symbiosis allegories *
5. "Kubrick had a reason to change 'Athena' to HAL" does not mean that HAL
= IBM, it just poses that Kubrick had reasons
6. "it's too far-fetched to believe it's a coincidence" just pads out the
list, is only a re-phrasing of #1
7. not being a 'genuine' acronym doesn't prove where the name came from
* but I am most probably wrong about this
Lame-ass ways to argue with Leonard:
1. Oh yeah? Well, you just want to sell your book.
2. I'm tired of hearing about this hal/ibm thing, it's old news.
3. No one knows for sure but Kubrick and Clarke; but I know that you're
wrong.
4. How dare you call Clarke a liar!
John
lenw...@earthlink.net says...
>
>no...@none.com (John) wrote in message
news:<TBaO8.18764$Hn4.4...@news1.east.cox.net>...
>> In article <b5f71a25.0206...@posting.google.com>,
>> lenw...@earthlink.net says...
>
>> Effectively your entire argument is based on the premise that A.C.Clarke,
for
>> some unknown reason, 'lied' about naming HAL and after 35 years continues
to
>> 'lie' when there is no logical reason for him to do so.
>
> Such hyperbole! My "entire argument," which you say
>involves only one point, consists of seven clearly numbered points.
>In addition to the 7-point constructive part of my argument, I refute
>what seems to be the one and only argument on the other side: the
>argument that says Clarke denies that HAL is based on IBM. This
>refutation is what you refer to as my "entire argument." How did you
>manage to overlook the seven clearly numbered points of my real
>argument?
Read what I wrote: I state your "entire argument is BASED on the premise that
Clarke..." (and Kubrick) "...lied..."
Your reasons rest on this foundation; this single point: THEY LIED and Clarke
CONTINUES TO LIE. The rest of what you write is the argument's structure - the
walls, floors and ceiling, so to speak. It is like building a skyscraper on a
cinder-block foundation - no matter how strong the structure is, if the
foundation is weak the structure is inevitably also weak.
> And why do you falsely imply that I failed to give a reasoelin("for some UNKNOWN reason") for Clarke's inaccurate assertion that HAL
>is an acronym? I first quoted Chester Desmond: "IBM acted as
>consultants for the movie and refused to allow 'IBM" to be used [on
>the computer] when they found out the villain was the computer." Then
>I elaborated: "Here Desmond alludes to Kubrick's original intent to
>put the IBM logo on the computer -- to go along with the Pan-Am logo
>on the earth shuttle, the Howard Johnsons sign on the space station
>restaurant, and the Hilton Hotels sign on the space station hotel.
>When IBM demurred, Kubrick -- he not Clarke, was in charge of names --
>changed the computer's name from Athena (itself a change from the
>original name Socrates) to HAL." (The fact that IBM permitted Kubrick
>to use its logo in the space station in no way contradicts my
>assertion that IBM objected to having its logo in the spaceship, on
>the computer.)
The reasons (facts) remain unknown. What you present is speculation. Lacking
fact, which in this case could only come from notes or corroboration from
those who supposedly perpetuated this charade, the reasons remain unknown.
As you never state WHY you believe they would lie, merely present speculative
'proof' that HAL is derived from IBM, I was speculating on my own as to the
WHY they would not tell the truth of how they came upon the name HAL. In other
words, what was their motive for lying?
The only reason that seemed to make sense, based solely on the statement that
IBM wouldn't let them use the logo on the villian, is that IBM threatened
legal action if Kubrick used ANYTHING that would cast IBM in a 'bad light'.
This would include telling the story that IBM would not let them use the IBM
logo on the bad computer so they used 'HAL' which is derived from the letters
IBM. (Threat of legal action is not as far-fetched as it would seem knowing
the corporate mentality that existed then, and is many ways still exists, at
IBM.)
In this new post, you state a reason you believe K would lie, thus my "legal"
speculation is no longer relevant.
Also, my speculation had to do with the use of HAL, how it was derived and how
that might harm IBM. It did not concern the actual use of the IBM logo, which
WOULD have been illegal if used without their permission. Sorry if I wasn't
clear.
>> After this much time, the popularity of 2001:ASO and HAL, the fame of
Kubrick
>> and the speculations by people such as yourself (and speculations they
remain
>> however energetically you defend them) Clarke and IBM would most likely
tell
>> the truth about the name HAL. . . . This would pose no
>> embarrassment to IBM as the company leaders of that time are long gone and
>> everyone could have a great laugh over the matter.
> Sometimes people don't want to admit that, way back when the
>fib did count, they fibbed. Their reputations for credibility and
>honesty are at stake. It is often best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Clarke's reputation would not suffer one iota by admitting this so-called hoax
at this late date. Neither would Kubrick's. If anything, the terms "Great joke
SK!" and "SEE! I WAS RIGHT!" would be the ones most often used.
> And there are more reasons than that for not offering a
>retraction. Kubrick couldn't very well admit the acronym story was a
>hoax without acknowledging that HAL is derived from IBM. He would
>then be identifying one of his symbols, and that is something Kubrick
>consistently refused to do. He wants YOU to find and interpret those
>symbols. Besides, it wasn't Kubrick, it was Clarke, who used the
>false acronym. Nowhere in 2001 will you find Clarke's interpretation
>of HAL, which holds that HAL stands for "Heuristically programmed
>ALgorithmic computer." But you will find it in Clarke's novel.
Kubrick is dead. Clarke has obviously become sick of this
rumor-that-won't-die. I seriuosly doubt if any of K's family would be upset if
the whole story was made known at this late date. I reiterate: THERE IS NO
LOGICAL REASON FOR CLARKE TO CONTINUE TO LIE ABUT THIS.
> As for Clarke, I earlier characterized as "tongue in cheek"
>his assertion that HAL is an acronym. But on further reflection, I
>think he is sincere. He got rather testy when he referred to the
>HAL-IBM connection as "one ANNOYING and persistent myth." Clarke was
>the one who worked out the so-called acronym. He of course worked
>backwards from HAL to "Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer."
>But that's the usual approach to creating acronyms -- people start
>with the end result in mind -- so the backward approach wouldn't make
>him less inclined to regard HAL as a real acronym. He seems to be
>proud of his accomplishment, flawed though it really is, so why should
>he retract what he said. He really believes HAL is an acronym, one
>that he himself designed.
Let me get this straight:
Clarke isn't lying, he's convinced himself and now believes his own lie.
Or
It isn't a lie on his part. He has no idea how SK came up with the name HAL
and decided on his own what it meant for the novel.
Make up your mind. What did he know and when did he know it?
CONSPIRACY!
>> I do not claim to know the absolute truth of this matter. I merely look at
>> the sources of the different stories and prefer to believe the one that
>> comes from the horse's mouth.
>>
>> John
>
> Now you're in big trouble, John. You just called Clarke a
>horse. You'd better find yourself a good lawyer.
Oooh, he does have a sense of humor!
Leonard F. Wheat
> In article <c7bd3a44.02061...@posting.google.com>,
> tf...@inetzone.com says...
> >
> >> Effectively your entire argument is based on the premise that A.C. Clarke,
> for
> >> some unknown reason, 'lied' about naming HAL and after 35 years continues
> to
> >> 'lie' when there is no logical reason for him to do so.
> >
> >This isn't really what Mr. Wheat is saying at all. (At least I don't
> >thing so.)
> <snip arguments>
> >In this scenario, Clarke would forever believe that HAL is an acronym
> >and that its relation to IBM is purely accidental. He's not lying.
> >Kubrick on the other hand was lying and probably giggled about it to
> >his grave.
>
> How can you possibly say Mr. Wheat is not contending that Clarke is lying? Did
> you even read his original post?
Before digging yourself any deeper into your hole, John,
perhaps you should read my reply to your earlier post. You will see
that it is you who apparently did not "even read [my] original post."
You began with three misrepresentations of what I wrote in a row. And
you now, using words that are certainly less than fully accurate and
honest in reporting what I said, have inflated "tongue in cheek" and
"mischief" to "lying." Earlier, you even misquoted me as saying
Clarke "lied" (those are your quotation marks). Call it lying if you
must -- that's your word, not mine -- but some of us understand the
English language well enough to recognize nuances of meaning between
"tongue in cheek" and "lie."
> Mr. Wheat specifically states that Desmond wrote "IBM acted as consultants for
> the movie and refused to allow ‘IBM' to be used when they found out the
> villain was the computer." In short, IBM wasn't used because IBM objected to
> the use of the trademarked name. And he also reiterates his claim that (and
> this is also a direct quote from his original post) "Clarke tried to COVER UP
> THE MISCHIEF by claiming that Hal is an acronym for 'Heuristically programmed
> ALgorithmic computer.'" (Capitalization mine.)
Now you're contradicting what you said in your previous
post. There you said I claimed, "for some UNKNOWN reason," that
Clarke's acronym story was false. It seems you have now belatedly
discovered the reason I gave (or one-third of it anyhow), which was
always in plain sight.
> If stating that "Clarke tried to cover up the mischief" is not a direct
> allegation that he (Clarke) is lying, and is an integral part of the
> "cover-up," then I must be totally ignorant of the english language.
>
> John
No, John, you're not TOTALLY ignorant of the English language
-- just ignorant (let's change that to "unaccomplished") enough not to
understand nuances of meaning between such words as "mischief" and
"lie" and between "tongue in cheek" and "lie" (and not to understand
that "English" is spelled with a capital E).
You will note that, in my reply to your earlier post, I have
rethought my view on what Clarke was doing. I now think he was not up
to mischief but was sincere in asserting that HAL is an acronym for
"Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer." (The mischief was
Kubrick's, assuming that Kubrick helped Clarke turn HAL into what
Clarke wrongly thinks is an acronym.) You won't find the assertion
that HAL is an acronym in the movie; it is from Clarke's novel.
Clarke, probably with some prompting from Kubrick, came up with a
four-word formal name for Hal. He seems to be proud of his
accomplishment, and he doesn't know that a genuine acronym (a) must
include the initial letters of ALL major words (not just two words out
of four) and (b) must include a letter representing a noun ("computer"
in this case) that identifies the entity being named. Clarke wasn't
in on Kubrick's symbolism: it wasn't until several years later that he
realized that "Bowman" symbolized "bow-man" (Odysseus). So Clarke
really had no reason to deliberately cover up Kubrick's symbolism. I
suppose that's why he got so testy when he referred to "one ANNOYING
and persistent myth" (the HAL-IBM "myth").
Where Kubrick is concerned, on the other hand, the false
acronym really is mischief. Just a cover story. Kubrick never gave
away his symbolism.
Leonard F. Wheat
My goodness gracious, you do delight in putting words ("lie")
into people's mouths, don't you? What you call the foundation of my
seven arguments is the conclusion my arguments point to. In a sense,
it is also the issue we are debating: is HAL derived from IBM or isn't
it? Those (including you) who say it isn't rest their entire case on
Clarke's assertion that HAL is not derived from IBM; you have no other
argument. I think I am entitled to rebut your argument, just as you
are entitled to rebut mine.
Instead of rebutting my arguments, however, you merely
challenge my conclusion -- that HAL is based on IBM. You seem to
think it is audacious for anyone to take this side of the issue,
because Clarke denies the link. But, as I have pointed out, Clarke
probably doesn't even know the truth. The name HAL 9000, like all the
names in 2001, come from Kubrick, not Clarke. Clarke turned HAL into
what he thinks is an acronym, yes. But the name was Kubrick's, just
as Hal's earlier names -- Socrates and Athena -- were Kubrick's, and
just as Dave Bowman's two symbolic names were Kubrick's. Don't be so
cock-sure that Clarke knows the truth. Or that, if he does know the
truth, he would never ever conspire with Kubrick to conceal it so as
to avoid offending IBM.
> >And why do you falsely imply that I failed to give a reason ("for some UNKNOWN reason") for Clarke's inaccurate assertion that HAL
> >is an acronym? I first quoted Chester Desmond: "IBM acted as
> >consultants for the movie and refused to allow 'IBM" to be used [on
> >the computer] when they found out the villain was the computer." Then
> >I elaborated: "Here Desmond alludes to Kubrick's original intent to
> >put the IBM logo on the computer -- to go along with the Pan-Am logo
> >on the earth shuttle, the Howard Johnsons sign on the space station
> >restaurant, and the Hilton Hotels sign on the space station hotel.
> >When IBM demurred, Kubrick -- he not Clarke, was in charge of names --
> >changed the computer's name from Athena (itself a change from the
> >original name Socrates) to HAL." (The fact that IBM permitted Kubrick
> >to use its logo in the space station in no way contradicts my
> >assertion that IBM objected to having its logo in the spaceship, on
> >the computer.)
>
> The reasons (facts) remain unknown. What you present is speculation.
Keep your eye on the ball, John. The immediate issue here
is whether I "failed to give a reason" why Kubrick or Clarke would
deny that HAL was derived from IBM if it really were. You falsely
accused me of failing to give a reason. I responded by quoting the
reason (see above) I originally gave. That is, I showed your
assertion was false. Your response is that the reason isn't a good
one, that it is just speculation. Whether the reason I gave is good
or bad (I think it is good) is beside the point. The point is you
misrepresented me when you claimed that I failed to give a reason,
even a bad one.
> > Conclusion: "John" has a reckless disregard for accuracy.
>
> >> IBM would have had an impossible task proving damage from
> >> the use of the name HAL because there was none as HAL is a fictional
> >> machine, not a real IBM product. Also, as long as the trademark wasn't
> >> used, there was no infringement.
>
> > Now you're tilting at windmills, whipping a straw man. Who
> >said anything about fear of being sued? We're talking about fear of
> >offending someone with whom Kubrick wanted to maintain good relations.
> As you never state WHY you believe they would lie, merely present speculative
> 'proof' that HAL is derived from IBM, I was speculating on my own . . .
There you go again -- saying, with reckless disregard for
the truth, that I "never state why you believe they would lie." Can't
you read? Read the line immediately above your statement: "We're
talking about fear of offending someone with whom Kubrick wanted to
maintain good relations." I also said that acceding to IBM's request
was a matter of common courtesy. Whether you consider those to be
good reasons is again beside the point. They ARE reasons, and I do
state why Kubrick and Clarke (if Clarke was in on it) would deny the
HAL-IBM connection. The only "lie" around here is the one that
begins, "you never state why . . ."
> >> After this much time, the popularity of 2001:ASO and HAL, the fame of
> Kubrick
> >> and the speculations by people such as yourself (and speculations they
> remain
> >> however energetically you defend them) Clarke and IBM would most likely
> tell
> >> the truth about the name HAL. . . . This would pose no
> >> embarrassment to IBM as the company leaders of that time are long gone and
> >> everyone could have a great laugh over the matter.
>
> > Sometimes people don't want to admit that, way back when the
> >fib did count, they fibbed. Their reputations for credibility and
> >honesty are at stake. It is often best to let sleeping dogs lie.
> Clarke's reputation would not suffer one iota by admitting this so-called
> hoax at this late date. Neither would Kubrick's.
You don't know that (assuming that Clarke was actually in on
Kubrick's hoax in the first place). Besides, it's not so much a
matter of whether Clarke's reputation actually WOULD suffer as a
matter of whether Clarke would FEAR losing his reputation for honesty.
As I said, sometimes its best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Moreover, we don't even know that Clarke was in on the hoax.
As I pointed out in my last paragraph (reprinted below), I now doubt
that Clarke was. He seems to be sincere in his denial that HAL is
derived from IBM. He is proud of what he thinks is an acronym -- it
isn't -- that he created by working backwards from the name Kubrick
chose, Hal. If he happens to believe HAL is not derived from IBM, why
should he say what he doesn't believe -- that it is?
> > And there are more reasons than that for not offering a
> >retraction. Kubrick couldn't very well admit the acronym story was a
> >hoax without acknowledging that HAL is derived from IBM. He would
> >then be identifying one of his symbols, and that is something Kubrick
> >consistently refused to do. He wants YOU to find and interpret those
> >symbols. Besides, it wasn't Kubrick, it was Clarke, who used the
> >false acronym. Nowhere in 2001 will you find Clarke's interpretation
> >of HAL, which holds that HAL stands for "Heuristically programmed
> >ALgorithmic computer." But you will find it in Clarke's novel.
> Kubrick is dead. Clarke has obviously become sick of this
> rumor-that-won't-die. I seriuosly doubt if any of K's family would be upset if
> the whole story was made known at this late date.
I don't recall saying that fear of upsetting K's family was a
consideration here. Let's stick to the points at issue.
Mike Jackson
>>> Sometimes people don't want to admit that, way back when the
>>> fib did count, they fibbed. Their reputations for credibility and
>>> honesty are at stake. It is often best to let sleeping dogs lie.
>> Clarke's reputation would not suffer one iota by admitting this so-called
>> hoax at this late date. Neither would Kubrick's.
> You don't know that (assuming that Clarke was actually in on
> Kubrick's hoax in the first place). Besides, it's not so much a
> matter of whether Clarke's reputation actually WOULD suffer as a
> matter of whether Clarke would FEAR losing his reputation for honesty.
> As I said, sometimes its best to let sleeping dogs lie.
>
> Moreover, we don't even know that Clarke was in on the hoax.
> As I pointed out in my last paragraph (reprinted below), I now doubt
> that Clarke was. He seems to be sincere in his denial that HAL is
> derived from IBM. He is proud of what he thinks is an acronym -- it
> isn't -- that he created by working backwards from the name Kubrick
> chose, Hal. If he happens to believe HAL is not derived from IBM, why
> should he say what he doesn't believe -- that it is?
So your thesis is that at worst Arthur C. Clarke is a lair or at best
incredibly stupid? And either way Kubrick is a lair, abet one of a
monumentally insignificant plot point in his film?
Smart move Leonard. You really know how to make friends and influence
people!
>>> And there are more reasons than that for not offering a
>>> retraction. Kubrick couldn't very well admit the acronym story was a
>>> hoax without acknowledging that HAL is derived from IBM. He would
>>> then be identifying one of his symbols, and that is something Kubrick
>>> consistently refused to do. He wants YOU to find and interpret those
>>> symbols. Besides, it wasn't Kubrick, it was Clarke, who used the
>>> false acronym. Nowhere in 2001 will you find Clarke's interpretation
>>> of HAL, which holds that HAL stands for "Heuristically programmed
>>> ALgorithmic computer." But you will find it in Clarke's novel.
>> Kubrick is dead. Clarke has obviously become sick of this
>> rumor-that-won't-die. I seriuosly doubt if any of K's family would be upset
>> if the whole story was made known at this late date.
> I don't recall saying that fear of upsetting K's family was a
> consideration here. Let's stick to the points at issue.
You know I always automatically distrust anyone that feels the need to push
their middle initial at me, and in this case oh boy, right again.
Oh, you do have a point Leonard F. Wheat, but don't worry, if you wear a hat
no one will notice...
The incredible tenacity you've put into asserting this theory of yours just
about guarantees that no one will take anything else you say in this forum
seriously from here on out.
John
> Before digging yourself any deeper into your hole, John,
>perhaps you should read my reply to your earlier post. You will see
>that it is you who apparently did not "even read [my] original post."
>You began with three misrepresentations of what I wrote in a row. And
>you now, using words that are certainly less than fully accurate and
>honest in reporting what I said, have inflated "tongue in cheek" and
>"mischief" to "lying." Earlier, you even misquoted me as saying
>Clarke "lied" (those are your quotation marks). Call it lying if you
>must -- that's your word, not mine -- but some of us understand the
>English language well enough to recognize nuances of meaning between
>"tongue in cheek" and "lie."
Boiling it to the bare essentials, distilling it if you will: if he did not
tell the truth, regardless of his motive - be it 'mischief' or
'tongue-in-cheek', then he 'lied.' The motive may make it a forgivable lie, or
a funny lie or even an understandable lie, but does not change the fact that
it is a lie. The way you use it, tongue in cheek is a 'lie' told to perpetuate
a joke, one that is not even meant to be believed. I assume you meant mischief
to indicate they intended to mislead the public for whatever reasons suited
them. You use specific phrases to indicate a complex idea in a few words. But
it still come down to 'he lied.'
I put the word 'lie' in quotations (I should have used single quotes rather
than double, my bad) to indicate I had stripped your contention of any
"nuance" and got to the basic fact that you claimed he did not tell the truth
as to how they came up with the name HAL. 'Lie' was the most direct way I had
of saying that.
To deny an untruth (tongue in cheek, mischief, whatever euphemism you choose
to use) is a lie because of motive is splitting hairs.
> Now you're contradicting what you said in your previous
>post. There you said I claimed, "for some UNKNOWN reason," that
>Clarke's acronym story was false. It seems you have now belatedly
>discovered the reason I gave (or one-third of it anyhow), which was
>always in plain sight.
The quote from your post is not a reason for the 'lie', but one of your
suppositions as to why they changed the name to HAL. My contention was that if
your suppositions were true, there were and are no reasons for SK and Clarke
to hide that they used IBM to derive the name HAL. This was in no way meant to
address your claim as to why the name was changed, or from where the new name
was derived, but to point out that you did not give any motive for them to
make up a false reason for the name change.
You have now given what you believe is a motive: SK's not wanting to reveal
any symbolism in his films. Once again, this is speculation on your part and
could not be proven except by the words of Mr. Kubrick, which is now
impossible (unless he wrote it down somewhere.)
>> If stating that "Clarke tried to cover up the mischief" is not a direct
>> allegation that he (Clarke) is lying, and is an integral part of the
>> "cover-up," then I must be totally ignorant of the english language.
>>
>> John
> No, John, you're not TOTALLY ignorant of the English language
>-- just ignorant (let's change that to "unaccomplished") enough not to
>understand nuances of meaning between such words as "mischief" and
>"lie" and between "tongue in cheek" and "lie" (and not to understand
>that "English" is spelled with a capital E).
Continuing to split hairs? Let's go over this again: an untruth, whatever the
motive, is a lie. I will agree the word 'lie' carries more emotional baggage
for most people than 'fib' or tongue-in-cheek or even mischief, but that does
not change your (now abandoned) claim Mr. Clarke was/is not telling the truth.
In short, he lied. Your use of other words (mischief, tongue-in-cheek,
whatever) does not change this.
(As for 'English' being capitalized - I am not the best typist in the world
and often forego/forget - accidentally and on purpose - some capitalization.
I also occasionally transpose letters. Of course, your mention of this has
nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is merely meant to show me as a
fool. I won't bite and I don't think anyone really cares.)
> You will note that, in my reply to your earlier post, I have
>rethought my view on what Clarke was doing. I now think he was not up
>to mischief but was sincere in asserting that HAL is an acronym for
>"Heuristically programmed ALgorithmic computer." (The mischief was
>Kubrick's, assuming that Kubrick helped Clarke turn HAL into what
>Clarke wrongly thinks is an acronym.) You won't find the assertion
>that HAL is an acronym in the movie; it is from Clarke's novel.
>Clarke, probably with some prompting from Kubrick, came up with a
>four-word formal name for Hal. He seems to be proud of his
>accomplishment, and he doesn't know that a genuine acronym (a) must
>include the initial letters of ALL major words (not just two words out
>of four) and (b) must include a letter representing a noun ("computer"
>in this case) that identifies the entity being named. Clarke wasn't
>in on Kubrick's symbolism: it wasn't until several years later that he
>realized that "Bowman" symbolized "bow-man" (Odysseus). So Clarke
>really had no reason to deliberately cover up Kubrick's symbolism. I
>suppose that's why he got so testy when he referred to "one ANNOYING
>and persistent myth" (the HAL-IBM "myth").
>
> Where Kubrick is concerned, on the other hand, the false
>acronym really is mischief. Just a cover story. Kubrick never gave
>away his symbolism.
You took the first step and admit you may have been mistaken, at least in
part.
Then in the same paragraph you appear to indicate that 35 years after the fact
you believe you have a keener insight into what was going on when this ocurred
than one of the finest minds of the 20th (and now 21st) century. A mind that
just happened to be 'on site' at the time the supposed mischief orginated.
In the same section you also directly claim Mr. Clarke was/is ignorant of what
constitutes an acronym, and here I do quote you in case someone may have
missed this:
"He seems to be proud of his accomplishment, and he doesn't know that a
genuine acronym (a) must include the initial letters of ALL major words (not
just two words out of four) and (b) must include a letter representing a noun
("computer" in this case) that identifies the entity being named."
I stand by my original contention and continue to believe Mr. Clarke's
statements over your speculation. I now add to this that by having known Mr.
Kubrick personally, by working closely with him in making 2001 and by
continuing to communicate with Mr. Kubrick in the years after the film was
completed, Mr. Clarke understood Mr. Kubrick much better than you do, or ever
will. I also do not remotely believe that Mr. Clarke does not know what
constitutes a valid acronym.
Your original speculation, while interesting, remains nothing more than
speculation.
John
altgodkub
I'm saying ALL creative people use two steps.
1. Have an idea.
2. Realize the idea.
Within each of these steps is an infinite number of possible sub-steps
and backtracks out of which your "whatever" and "and so on and on" are
sure to be found somewhere.
What I feel makes Kubrick exceptional (within this two-step creative
framework) is the difference between these two scenarios:
A. (Not Kubrick)
1. The spacepod needs to symbolize a sperm cell.
2. Hey designer, make the spacepod look like a sperm cell because I
need it for my Zarathustra and Man-Machine allegories.
B. (Kubrick)
1. The spacepod needs to symbolize a sperm cell.
2. I'll let the designer be really creative and try a bunch of stuff
and prod him in the right direction and let him happen upon a design
that serves my purpose.
---
I've been accused of being a Len Wheat disciple. To that I plead
guilty. And when someone else hatches a theory even one tenth as good
as his (which I've never come close to seeing), that someone will
become my personal Messiah as well -- at least where 2001 is
concerned.
John
> My goodness gracious, you do delight in putting words ("lie")
>into people's mouths, don't you? What you call the foundation of my
>seven arguments is the conclusion my arguments point to. In a sense,
>it is also the issue we are debating: is HAL derived from IBM or isn't
>it? Those (including you) who say it isn't rest their entire case on
>Clarke's assertion that HAL is not derived from IBM; you have no other
>argument. I think I am entitled to rebut your argument, just as you
>are entitled to rebut mine.
I have addressed my use of 'lie' in another post and see no reason to
reiterate it here. I never tried to refute your arguments, they are good ones.
However, they were/are based on a premise I did not find believable - that
Clarke was not telling the truth of the derivation. You have abandonded this
line for one that is more reasonable, but still suspect as I state in another
post.
> Instead of rebutting my arguments, however, you merely
>challenge my conclusion -- that HAL is based on IBM. You seem to
>think it is audacious for anyone to take this side of the issue,
>because Clarke denies the link. But, as I have pointed out, Clarke
>probably doesn't even know the truth. The name HAL 9000, like all the
>names in 2001, come from Kubrick, not Clarke. Clarke turned HAL into
>what he thinks is an acronym, yes. But the name was Kubrick's, just
>as Hal's earlier names -- Socrates and Athena -- were Kubrick's, and
>just as Dave Bowman's two symbolic names were Kubrick's. Don't be so
>cock-sure that Clarke knows the truth. Or that, if he does know the
>truth, he would never ever conspire with Kubrick to conceal it so as
>to avoid offending IBM.
None of what you state in the above paragraph is part of your original post.
The idea that Clarke did not know the truth was first presented (and your new
theory acknowledged) in your follow-up to my first post. The same is true of
your giving a reason for them to initiate/continue the charade. I was merely
addressing each point in order, without getting ahead of what was in your
follow-up. Your original post did not address either issue.
I do not think it audacious for someone to take your view, one which I also
once held. I merely stated that I no longer hold that view and that your
argument was speculation. I also say that the foundation of your belief was a
flimsy one.
By themselves, your arguments could actually be quite persuasive. However, one
must be willing to believe that Kubrick (and possibly Clarke) deliberately set
out to mislead everyone as to how they named HAL and that Clarke is too dense
to know when he is being manipulated and cannot see the truth even after 35
years. I do not take this view, and thus cannot agree with your conclusions.
> Keep your eye on the ball, John. The immediate issue here
>is whether I "failed to give a reason" why Kubrick or Clarke would
>deny that HAL was derived from IBM if it really were. You falsely
>accused me of failing to give a reason. I responded by quoting the
>reason (see above) I originally gave. That is, I showed your
>assertion was false. Your response is that the reason isn't a good
>one, that it is just speculation. Whether the reason I gave is good
>or bad (I think it is good) is beside the point. The point is you
>misrepresented me when you claimed that I failed to give a reason,
>even a bad one.
Once again, your original post did not give a motive for not revelaing the way
the name was derived. Your follow-up does have several.
I was referring to your original post in that passage, not the follow-up.
> There you go again -- saying, with reckless disregard for
>the truth, that I "never state why you believe they would lie." Can't
>you read? Read the line immediately above your statement: "We're
>talking about fear of offending someone with whom Kubrick wanted to
>maintain good relations." I also said that acceding to IBM's request
>was a matter of common courtesy. Whether you consider those to be
>good reasons is again beside the point. They ARE reasons, and I do
>state why Kubrick and Clarke (if Clarke was in on it) would deny the
>HAL-IBM connection. The only "lie" around here is the one that
>begins, "you never state why . . ."
Once agian, I was referring to your original post - not the follow-up.
If it wasn't clear to which post I was making reference, I apologize.
> You don't know that (assuming that Clarke was actually in on
>Kubrick's hoax in the first place). Besides, it's not so much a
>matter of whether Clarke's reputation actually WOULD suffer as a
>matter of whether Clarke would FEAR losing his reputation for honesty.
> As I said, sometimes its best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Except this dog is up, prowling about and has never lain down.
Also, from what I have seen and heard from Mr. Clarke in his writings and
public addresses I really don't think he gives a damn what others think of
him. If he did, why would he live in Sri Lanka when most people that knew him
(by his own admission) thought he was crazy moving there?
> Moreover, we don't even know that Clarke was in on the hoax.
>As I pointed out in my last paragraph (reprinted below), I now doubt
>that Clarke was. He seems to be sincere in his denial that HAL is
>derived from IBM. He is proud of what he thinks is an acronym -- it
>isn't -- that he created by working backwards from the name Kubrick
>chose, Hal. If he happens to believe HAL is not derived from IBM, why
>should he say what he doesn't believe -- that it is?
Watch the capitalization, Leonard. Wouldn't want people to think you are
sloppy, would you? ;)
> I don't recall saying that fear of upsetting K's family was a
>consideration here. Let's stick to the points at issue.
Merely reiterating one of many reasons I can think of not to continue the
charade.
John
kdc
>
> I'm saying ALL creative people use two steps.
>
> 1. Have an idea.
> 2. Realize the idea.
>
often takes place 'round here. Things that begin with "So what you're
saying is _____" and "In other words what you mean is _______". Ugh.
Leonard F. Wheat
> your suppositions were true, there were and are no reasons for SK and Clarke
> give any motive for them to make up a false reason for the name change.
You have said this twice before, each time in reference to my
original post. I answered you once before, showing you that in my
original post I did give a reason for Kubrick to "hide that they used
IBM to derive the name HAL." Here, once more, is what I wrote in my
previous reply about what I said in my original post:
"I first quoted Chester Desmond: 'IBM acted as consultants for
the movie and refused to allow "IBM" to be used [on the computer] when
they found out the villain was the computer.' Then I elaborated:
'Here Desmond alludes to Kubrick's original intent to put the IBM logo
on the computer -- to go along with the Pan-AM logo on the earth
shuttle, the Howard Johnsons sign on the space station restaurant, and
the Hilton Hotels sign on the space station hotel. When IBM demurred,
Kubrick -- he, not Clarke, was in charge of the names -- changed the
computer's name from Athena (itself a change from the original name
Socrates) to Hal.'"
It goes without saying that, when someone asks you not to use
something that belongs to them, common courtesy dictates that you
accede to their request. It also goes without saying that, if you
have a business relationship with the requester, good public relations
(tact, diplomacy) also dictates that you accede to their request.
kdc
"Leonard F. Wheat" <lenw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b5f71a25.0206...@posting.google.com...
put on it, IBM, and then separately there's the name that the computer would
be called, Athena. So it would be IBM make, Athena model. The astronauts
would call the computer "Athena" throughout, i.e. "Open the pod bay doors,
Athena." And we would see the IBM-logo letting us know that Athena was made
by IBM. I *think* that's what is described above (if it's not, then I think
I know where I got lost and you can ignore the rest of this).
Then, as the story goes, the issue comes up about
please-don't-use-the-IBM-logo. Okay, we'll use HAL instead. But why throw
away the 'Athena' name? Why throw out all the meaning that 'Athena' brought
with it, just because the logo-on-the-computer is different? For this story
to be evidence that the name HAL was constructed off of the letters IBM,
then the story would have to be that he was going to *name* the computer IBM
ala "Open the pod bay doors, IBM".
I'm just not getting the connection between changing the letters for the
Logo leading to changing the Name. Is there some in-between step? For
example, after deciding to change the Logo to "Hal" did Kubrick go, "y'know,
if I was on a spaceship with a computer with a 'Hal' logo on it, I think I'd
probably just call the damned thing 'Hal' all the time."
This last bit is pure guesswork, of course. And from what I've learned from
other postings the chances are pretty slim of me guessing exactly precisely
what was in the filmmaker's head. So there's gotta be something I'm
overlooking. Please help!
Rod Munday
> the movie and refused to allow "IBM" to be used [on the computer] when
> they found out the villain was the computer.' Then I elaborated:
> 'Here Desmond alludes to Kubrick's original intent to put the IBM logo
> on the computer -- to go along with the Pan-AM logo on the earth
> shuttle, the Howard Johnsons sign on the space station restaurant, and
> the Hilton Hotels sign on the space station hotel. When IBM demurred,
> Kubrick -- he, not Clarke, was in charge of the names -- changed the
> computer's name from Athena (itself a change from the original name
> Socrates) to Hal.'"
This is not true. The computer's name was was changed from Athena to
Hal at an earlier scripting stage. Hal was the name of the computer
when the film went into production, i.e. the time that when IBM raised
objections.
> It goes without saying that, when someone asks you not to use
> something that belongs to them, common courtesy dictates that you
> accede to their request. It also goes without saying that, if you
> have a business relationship with the requester, good public relations
> (tact, diplomacy) also dictates that you accede to their request.
IBM did not withdraw co-operation, their logos are still visible in
the cockpit of the Orion space shuttle, are there are some even in the
Discovery section of the film. I imagine that the only ones that were
removed were the ones actually on Hal's interface.
Regard, Rod Munday
John
You give a reason they did not use the IBM logo on the computer, not a motive
for the deception concerning the derivation of HAL.
I state as clearly as I can that your original post does not clearly state a
logical motive for them to hide the HAL derivation you contend is there
(perpetuate the decpetion), nor why they continued to hide it not only until
Mr. Kubrick's death, but even to this date.
You latter posts do give what could be a reason - Mr. Kubrick's secrecy about
his symbolism. Those same latter posts also reveal a new 'reason' why Mr.
Clarke continues to deny the connection (he didn't even know) - a reason I
personally do not buy.
Now, whether the symbolism was intentional or not is another discussion.
John
Leonard F. Wheat
You're right so far.
> Then, as the story goes, the issue comes up about
> please-don't-use-the-IBM-logo. Okay, we'll use HAL instead. But why throw
> away the 'Athena' name? Why throw out all the meaning that 'Athena' brought
> with it, just because the logo-on-the-computer is different? For this story
> to be evidence that the name HAL was constructed off of the letters IBM,
> then the story would have to be that he was going to *name* the computer IBM
> ala "Open the pod bay doors, IBM".
>
> I'm just not getting the connection between changing the letters for the
> Logo leading to changing the Name. Is there some in-between step? For
> example, after deciding to change the Logo to "Hal" did Kubrick go, "y'know,
> if I was on a spaceship with a computer with a 'Hal' logo on it, I think I'd
> probably just call the damned thing 'Hal' all the time."
> . . . So there's gotta be something I'm overlooking. Please help!
The IBM logo, if used with the name Athena, would NOT have
been symbolic. It would have been just an extension of the earlier
earth-products-into-space humor (the Pan-Am logo, the Howard Johnsons
sign, and the Hilton Hotels sign).
Why throw away the Athena name? Athena was not discarded
solely as a way of reinserting "IBM" after the computer was denied the
use of the IBM logo. Instead, Athena was discarded because Kubrick
came up with a better name, HAL 9000, half of which is based on "IBM."
It was better in three respects, although I'm not sure the third
respect was considered by Kubrick. First, it permitted the used of a
subtle HAL-IBM combination (not HAL alone) to symbolize things in two
allegories. (I'll elaborate in a moment.)
Second, "HAL 9000" permitted the use of the symbolic number
9000, which refers to the first 9000 years of history in Zoroastrian
mythology. This is the 9000 years that precede the arrival of
Zarathustra (a.k.a. Zoroaster) in the year 9001, the first year of a
new millennium. The year 2001, when Dave Bowman (Zarathustra)
arrives, symbolizes Zoroastrianism's 9001. And since Hal arrives at
the same time as Dave, the 9000 in Hal's name reinforces the "2001" in
the movie's title: both "2001" (symbolizing 9001) and 9000 (years
before 9001) allude to Zoroastrian mythology and thus hint at the
presence of the Zarathustra allegory. The numbers also help identify
Dave as Zarathustra.
Third, and I'm not at all sure about this, Kubrick may well
have had second thoughts about using "Athena" even before IBM objected
to the use of its logo. In THE ODYSSEY, Athena is a friend and helper
(more often than not) of Odysseus, represented in the allegory by
Bowman. But in the surface story, the computer becomes Bowman's
enemy. Doesn't the symbolic analogy break down if Kubrick has a
surface story enemy named Athena symbolizing an allegorical friend
named Athena? Granted, the computer does not really symbolize Athena,
but the name Athena sure makes the computer sound like a symbol for
the goddess.
When HAL was derived from IBM, the name IBM changed from a
humorous insert (the logo from earth) to a really useful symbol (part
of the HAL-IBM duo). I apparently didn't make it clear that the HAL
symbolism does not stand alone; HAL is only half of the two-man
HAL-IBM team. HAL and IBM coordinate to symbolize things in two
different allegories.
1. In the man-machine symbiosis allegory (a narrative based on
Clarke's theory of future symbiosis), Hal-Discovery symbolizes a race
of humanoid machines that "evolves" from (is developed by) man and
threatens to replace man. The symbiots are half man, half machine.
HAL, a MAN's name, symbolizes the "man" side of "man-machine." IBM,
which stands for International Business MACHINES, symbolizes the
"machine" side.
2. In the Zarathustra allegory, Hal-Discovery symbolizes God as
described by Nietzsche. God is (a) created by man (b) in his (man's)
own image. Now HAL, again as a MAN's name, symbolizes part (b): God
is a MAN ("A man he was!" said Zarathustra). IBM, a label on machines
CREATED BY MAN (the good people at IBM), symbolizes part (a): God is
created by man ("I created him," said Zarathustra).
FAKE_ID
because it rhymes with PAL - Pedagogic Algorithmic Language) Kubrick or
whoever chose to shift the letters of IBM left-wise instead of to the
right. The higher letters would seem more logical, or at least at first
thought since this suggests a step higher, which is what this super-
futuristic computer that sings supposedly represents: a barrier
shattering leap in the evolution of AI. Hence instead of HAL why didn't
the movie use the letters on the otherside of IBM? I would spell it out
but I can't until teacher have me learned my abc's at skool.
However I can see a valid point in NOT ascending the alphabet. For
instance, if one had reached Z (Zarathustra, ZZtop, ...zzzzzzzz...) and
there were no more letters left, then a return towards A would not
necessarily mean a step back in the sense of becoming a less potent
entity but rather a rediscovery of something fundamental and deep, the
blinding primal light, which looking into is "Risky Business" and we
might do as Tom Cruise did in that truly metaphysically profound film and
put on sunglasses. The movie 2001 is sort of about this hitting of limits
and it kind of makes sense that the closing shot is of a weird-wise-
looking baby as this is a descent into the womb, the innermost part of
cosmos is feminine (Universal Mother by Sinead O'Conner is a pretty good
album, ever play it while dancing in your parents house in your underwear
and socks?)
Of course this means nothing if IBM were bought out by the Japanese who
then changed the name into something non-alphabetical, some Kanji that
looks like a picture of a horse humping a dictionary (which is btw what I
am called by the Native Indians that pass my way as I travel this great
nation of ours).
David Kirkpatrick
> Oh, come now. Are the odds of 8,788 to 1 against the
> HAL-IBM connection's being a coincidence speculation, or are they
> fact? Is Kubrick's use of symbolic names speculation or fact?
What a curious number. Apparently you've taken 26 and raised it to the
power of 3 and then divided it by 2.
In other words, you seem to assume that any combination of letters from
AAA to ZZZ might have been equal contenders to name the computer [xxx]
9000, but this seems too many, so you eliminate exactly half of them.
This seems to me a rather funny abuse of mathematics when you consider
the absurdity of the underlying assumption (i.e. involving monkeys and
typewriters). What is funny is that you offer a number with 4
significant digits when your number is probably off by 1 or 2 factors of 10.
What your probability theory does is assume an equal footing for
patterns like FUK, USA, BIF, XXZ, DUM, GMC, GOD, and any number of
triads (not to mention IBM, BMI and MIB ("men in black?")) which would
be rejected by an ordinary person because they either carried too much
meaning with them or not enough. Keep in mind that if IBM makes HAL
suspicious, then USA makes VTB suspicious.
HAL is both a man's name and a creditable acronym (the real-world rules
for acronyms is not so purist as Wheat suggests) for a type of
artificial intelligence. That HAL sounds a bit like "whole" and a bit
like "hell" seems more interesting to me than any hidden numerology to
it. What is interesting about the choice of "Heuristic" and
"Algorithmic" as keys to his name is that his very name suggests his
fallibility and the idea that his "infallibility" is nothing more than a
matter of ideology. If I were to wax McLuhanistic, I might explore the
implication of connecting "heuristic algorithm" with "Hellenic
Alphabet". H'after h'all, before there was AI, there was AL. All of
this is speculative, but at least these ideas and associations have a
HAListic rather than reductionistic quality to them. And they call for
the kind of holistic exploration that a literary or art critic would
engage in. But my point isn't to defend the validity of my
interpretations but rather the essential validity of the more humanistic
approaches of those critics in contrast to the pseudo-science of
encryption and decryption.
If you want to get a more reasonable estimation of the unlikelihood of a
*good* three-letter name for an intelligent computer having a
HAL-IBM-like connection, then a more reasonable (though tiring) approach
would be to subject a sample of randomly generated triads to subjective
criticism and to see how many survive as decent candidates for computer
names. Then run them by a lawyer.
What is really curious about this episode though is that the type of
argument Leonard Wheat reminds me of how a creationist would argue.
"It's too improbable to be natural, so it must be a miracle from God."
Since Mr. Wheat is clearly not a creationist, the fact that he derives
bold numerical results from highly dubious context-free assumptions
suggests to me that he is probably an economist, most likely from the
Chicago School, therefore probably a Nobel winner.
David
Leonard F. Wheat
> Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
>
>
> > Oh, come now. Are the odds of 8,788 to 1 against the
> > HAL-IBM connection's being a coincidence speculation, or are they
> > fact? Is Kubrick's use of symbolic names speculation or fact?
> What a curious number. Apparently you've taken 26 and raised it to the
> power of 3 and then divided it by 2.
>
> In other words, you seem to assume that any combination of letters from
> AAA to ZZZ might have been equal contenders to name the computer [xxx]
> 9000, but this seems too many, so you eliminate exactly half of them.
>
A long time ago a college professor of mine kept on his
office wall a framed sign that read: "It's better to be thought a fool
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." You, though you
obviously know almost nothing about probability calculation, have just
opened your mouth on the subject. In doing so, you have removed all
doubt. You have done so by belittling odds calculations performed by
none other than Arthur Clarke, a highly skilled mathematician.
Why do I say this? The odds I gave, 8,788 to 1, are merely
a refinement of odds calculated by Clarke. In THE LOST WORLDS OF
2001, page 78, Clarke writes: "The odds are twenty-six cubed, or
17,576 to 1" that each letter of HAL could, by chance, be one
alphabetical notch BEHIND the corresponding letter of IBM. Clarke's
mathematical procedure is flawless, but I think an assumption he makes
inappropriately doubles the odds. So I have refined the assumption so
as to make the odds more conservative. (I didn't want to exaggerate
the odds.) I have assumed that the computer's name's letters could
also have been one notch BEYOND the letters of IBM.
Here is how Clarke's calculation goes. Given that the
alphabet has 26 letters, there is one chance in 26 that the first
letter of HAL (H) will be one notch BEHIND the corresponding letter of
IBM (I). If this chance materializes, there is 1 chance in 26 that
HAL's second letter will likewise be one notch behind, so the odds are
1/26 x 1/26 = 1/676 that both of the first two letters will be one
notch behind. And if this stage-two possibility materializes, there
is another 1 chance in 26 that the third letter of HAL will also, by
chance, be one notch behind the corresponding letter of IBM. Putting
the three probabilities together, you get 1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 =
1/17,576, or 1 chance in 17,576 that, by chance alone, each letter of
HAL will be one notch BEHIND the corresponding letter of IBM.
As I said, Clarke's computation is flawless, but its
underlying assumption can be improved. Chance (coincidence) might
also have yielded a name in which each letter was one notch BEYOND the
corresponding letter of IBM. If we allow for both possibilities
– one notch BEHIND and one notch BEYOND – there are 2
chances in 26 that the first letter of the name will be adjacent to
the I from IBM. But once the position of the first letter has been
determined, there is still only 1 chance in 26 that the second letter
will be (a) on the SAME SIDE OF the corresponding letter from IBM and
(b) one notch apart. The same odds apply to the third letter. So the
revised odds are 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/8,788 – 1 chance in
8,788 – that each letter of the name will be BOTH one
alphabetical notch away from the corresponding letter of IBM and on
the same side (behind OR beyond).
. . . when you consider
> the absurdity of the underlying assumption (i.e. involving monkeys and
> typewriters). What is funny is that you offer a number with 4
> significant digits when your number is probably off by 1 or 2 factors of 10.
Without realizing it, you have said that Clarke's flawlessly
computed probability is "off by 1 or 2 factors of 10." That's your
opinion, the opinion of a man who opened his mouth and removed all
doubt. Clarke, a mathematician who knows what he is talking about,
has a different opinion. His is the one to believe.
> Leonard Wheat reminds me of how a creationist would argue.
> "It's too improbable to be natural, so it must be a miracle from God."
> Since Mr. Wheat is clearly not a creationist, the fact that he derives
> bold numerical results from highly dubious context-free assumptions
> suggests to me that he is probably an economist, most likely from the
> Chicago School, therefore probably a Nobel winner.
Wheat is indeed an economist (though of the Harvard school),
and he desperately hopes to win someday a Nobel Prize for a new study
of economic halitosis, as constrained by prismatic entropy under
conditions of paradigmatic uncertainty.
PT Caffey
<snip snip>
> ...Wheat is indeed an economist (though of the Harvard school),
> and he desperately hopes to win someday a Nobel Prize for a new study
> of economic halitosis, as constrained by prismatic entropy under
> conditions of paradigmatic uncertainty.
At this point in AMK's continuing odyssey with Leonard F. Wheat,
readers are advised to consult the criticism of Zemblan exile Charles
Kinbote, paying particular attention to his analysis of the poetry of
John Shade.
PT Caffey
David Kirkpatrick
The issue is not who's doing the math or whether the math is flawless.
It's not the "math" but the "science" that I am questioning. A
probabilistic calculation is only good as the assumptions underlying it.
And what assumption could be more absurd than the idea that the
linguistic imagination is random.
Clarke is not the sleuth in this situation, he's the "accused", so to
speak. So there's no motivation for him to think like a scientific
psychologist to clear up the mystery of what's going through his mind.
From his perspective, it is probably the naming of IBM that created the
improbable coincidence. There is a sequence of letters that more
closely resembles pure chance.
But for anyone other than Clarke and Kubrick (who cares about the
alleged non-coincidence) there is a different onus of proof. Using math
creates the illusion that you are being scientific, but the important
"reckoning" is the thought you put into the thought experiment.
26^3 / 2 may be valid as an algorithm, but it is unsound as a heuristic.
>
>>Leonard Wheat reminds me of how a creationist would argue.
>>"It's too improbable to be natural, so it must be a miracle from God."
>>Since Mr. Wheat is clearly not a creationist, the fact that he derives
>>bold numerical results from highly dubious context-free assumptions
>>suggests to me that he is probably an economist, most likely from the
>>Chicago School, therefore probably a Nobel winner.
>>
>
> Wheat is indeed an economist (though of the Harvard school),
> and he desperately hopes to win someday a Nobel Prize for a new study
> of economic halitosis, as constrained by prismatic entropy under
> conditions of paradigmatic uncertainty.
>
So you're going to study the stinkin' rich?
David
Leonard F. Wheat
First you didn't understand the math, and now you don't even
understand what the issue is. The issue is your statement that the
results of a simple mathematical procedure used by both Clarke and me
(and everyone else who computes simultaneous probabilities)
constituted a "rather funny ABUSE of mathematics." A corollary issue
is your further statement that the answer this procedure gives (odds
of 8,788 to 1)is "off by 1 or 2 factors of 10" (i.e., 10 to 20 times
too high). Now that you have been proven wrong, you resort to the
debate stratagem called "shifting ground," or diverting attention to
another issue that you pretend is the original issue.
By the way, your suggestion that math isn't a science is
also wrong. And you very definitely did question the math. You called
it "absurd."
> A probabilistic calculation is only good as the assumptions underlying it.
> And what assumption could be more absurd than the idea that the
> linguistic imagination is random.
Neither Clarke nor I made any such assumption. I plainly
stated that the assumption on which my calculation was based was that
was that each letter of HAL would be (a) adjacent to the corresponding
letter of IBM and (b) on the same side of IBM -- above or below in the
alphabet -- as the other two letters. And you said the resulting
answer was "absurd."
> Clarke is not the sleuth in this situation, he's the "accused", . . .
> From his perspective, it is probably the naming of IBM that created the
> improbable coincidence.
Once more you're "shifting ground." The issue on this
thread is not what caused the "improbable coincidence" to occur
despite the odds against it. The issue is: just how improbable is
(what are the odds against) such a coincidence? You created this
issue when you said the calculated odds of 8,788 to 1 were "absurd"
and 10 to 20 times too high (or did you mean too low?).
> Using math creates the illusion that you are being scientific, but the
> important "reckoning" is the thought you put into the thought experiment.
> 26^3 / 2 may be valid as an algorithm, but it is unsound as a heuristic.
Another phoney issue. Odds are not calculated by heuristic
procedures. Algorithmic and heuristic procedures are two contrasting
approaches for solving mathematical problems. An algorithm is a
fixed, step-by-step procedure in which each step from start to finish
is prescribed at the start. A heuristic procedure is one in which at
various steps along the way the computer (or whoever is doing the
arithmetic) uses what it has learned so far ("feedback" from early
stages) to decide how to procede during the next phase of problem
solving; the start-to-finish steps that will be followed are NOT known
at the start. Heuristic procedures can be extremely useful in
mathematics, but they are not used for computing simultaneous
probability.
David Kirkpatrick
First of all, how can you say I didn't understand the math if I
mentioned in my original post that you took 26, raised it to the 3rd
power and divided it by 2? Since there are 26 letters in the alphabet
and 3 letters in HAL, isn't it rather obvious what is being done
mathematically. There is no shifting of ground whatsoever. My original
point was that this calculation, however accurately performed,
constituted an abuse of mathematics. By this I was not quibbling with
the purity of the math but with the application.
Your quote of my original post conveniently excludes the following words:
What your probability theory does is assume an equal footing for
patterns like FUK, USA, BIF, XXZ, DUM, GMC, GOD, and any number of
triads (not to mention IBM, BMI and MIB ("men in black?")) which would
be rejected by an ordinary person because they either carried too much
meaning with them or not enough. Keep in mind that if IBM makes HAL
suspicious, then USA makes VTB suspicious.
There lies my basic point both in my original post and now. That any
scientific consideration of the probability of naming the creature
ultimately called "HAL" and accidentally producing a cryptic reference
to IBM must take into account the almost endless list of names that
would be rejected for one reason or another. For example, if a computer
randomly generated "USA 9000" as a name then we wouldn't be talking
about IBM, but we would be talking about USA. Similarly with VTB 9000.
Also the number of 3-letter male names is severely limited as is the
number of reasonable computer acronyms as is the intersection of these
two categories. This is why I think the number of plausible candidates
is more likely in the hundreds or even dozens.
<snip>
>
>>Using math creates the illusion that you are being scientific, but the
>>important "reckoning" is the thought you put into the thought experiment.
>>26^3 / 2 may be valid as an algorithm, but it is unsound as a heuristic.
>>
>
> Another phoney issue. Odds are not calculated by heuristic
> procedures. Algorithmic and heuristic procedures are two contrasting
> approaches for solving mathematical problems. An algorithm is a
> fixed, step-by-step procedure in which each step from start to finish
> is prescribed at the start. A heuristic procedure is one in which at
> various steps along the way the computer (or whoever is doing the
> arithmetic) uses what it has learned so far ("feedback" from early
> stages) to decide how to procede during the next phase of problem
> solving; the start-to-finish steps that will be followed are NOT known
> at the start. Heuristic procedures can be extremely useful in
> mathematics, but they are not used for computing simultaneous
> probability.
Are you sure you're not from the Chicago School?
David
JSpringer0953
>> > chances in 26 that the first letter of the name will be adjacent to
>> > the I from IBM. But once the position of the first letter has been
>> > determined, there is still only 1 chance in 26 that the second letter
>> > will be (a) on the SAME SIDE OF the corresponding letter from IBM and
>> > (b) one notch apart. The same odds apply to the third letter. So the
>> > 8,788 that each letter of the name will be BOTH one
Arguing with Leonard is like doing battle with a wolverine, armed only with a
Schweigert Tenderbite wiener.
Jon Springer www.cricketfilms.com
Padraig L Henry
<dak...@rogers.com> wrote:
>Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
>
>> David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D0E6DEE...@rogers.com>...
>>
>> A long time ago a college professor of mine kept on his
>> office wall a framed sign that read: "It's better to be thought a fool
>> than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
So how come you never took the advice of this tight-lipped
professorial reactionary? Oh, don't even bother removing the doubt!
>You, though you
>> obviously know almost nothing about probability calculation, have just
>> opened your mouth on the subject. In doing so, you have removed all
>> doubt. You have done so by belittling odds calculations performed by
>> none other than Arthur Clarke, a highly skilled mathematician.
But you have failed to factor in here the odds underlying your
assumptions about Clarke's mathematical proficiency. A Bayesian
failure performed by none other than Leonard Wheat, a ...Tut tut.
>>
>> Why do I say this? The odds I gave, 8,788 to 1, are merely
>> a refinement of odds calculated by Clarke. In THE LOST WORLDS OF
>> 2001, page 78, Clarke writes: "The odds are twenty-six cubed, or
>> 17,576 to 1" that each letter of HAL could, by chance, be one
>> alphabetical notch BEHIND the corresponding letter of IBM. Clarke's
>> mathematical procedure is flawless, ...
MMmmmm, I fail to see how you can reconcile your linear propabilistic
high-school calculations and inferences with your own Teeree
concerning 2001's triadic allegories here; surely, Gov, we need to
move forward from IBM, alpha-allegorically speaking, by three Homeric-
and Nietzsche-overcoming alphabet letters. After all, wasn't 2001 the
cinematic equivalent of being "one small step for man, one giant LEP
for mankind." And, strangely enough, the "odds" are the same here,
too; how very odd. Much more reasonable and logical and rational, and
no need for de embarrassing number crunching neither. Now why didn't
Kubrick, making his film in strict accordance with your flawless
jigsaw symbol-soup, think of that? Oh right, it might wind up
appearing to be too much of a coincidence for the dumb,
pre-Wheat-enlightened oddities in his audience ...
>>
>>>Leonard Wheat reminds me of how a creationist would argue.
>>>"It's too improbable to be natural, so it must be a miracle from God."
>>>Since Mr. Wheat is clearly not a creationist, the fact that he derives
>>>bold numerical results from highly dubious context-free assumptions
>>>suggests to me that he is probably an economist, most likely from the
>>>Chicago School, therefore probably a Nobel winner.
Or a character from an Umberto Eco novel. (Don't forget to lick your
fingers before turning the pages).
>> Wheat is indeed an economist (though of the Harvard school),
>> and he desperately hopes to win someday a Nobel Prize for a new study
>> of economic halitosis, as constrained by prismatic entropy under
>> conditions of paradigmatic uncertainty.
That is - non-prismatically - crystal clear, but aren't you assuming a
paradigm shift on the part of the Nobel Committee, and conditions of
unwarranted certainty on the part of more recent winners' [ of said
prize] attitude towards the clueless, hermetic bankruptcy - entropy -
of economic scientism?
>So you're going to study the stinkin' rich?
>
>David
The Economics of Poverty giving way to The Poverty of Economics [ he
t'inks that his stinkin' study will make him rich] ...
Padraig
"When the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate
intensity." So much for "passionate intensity", here.
David Sticher
wrote on 6/19/02 11:18 PM:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:17:51 GMT, David Kirkpatrick
> <dak...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
>>
>>> A long time ago a college professor of mine kept on his
>>> office wall a framed sign that read: "It's better to be thought a fool
>>> than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
>
> So how come you never took the advice of this tight-lipped
> professorial reactionary? Oh, don't even bother removing the doubt!
In case anyone cares, the quote's Twain. It's a strong one, and I wish more
people in the world heeded it.
>> You, though you
>>> obviously know almost nothing about probability calculation, have just
>>> opened your mouth on the subject. In doing so, you have removed all
>>> doubt. You have done so by belittling odds calculations performed by
>>> none other than Arthur Clarke, a highly skilled mathematician.
>
> But you have failed to factor in here the odds
<chop>
I'm surprised nobody's pieced together yet how even Wheat's "conservative"
rendition of Clarke's mathematics fails to take into account an actually
quite important factor in the probability equations - namely, how Athena was
renamed with a three-letter NAME, not simply a random string. Or at least a
noun, or at the very, very least something pronounceable. It would have
interrupted the narrative flow had Dave told QBJ or XRF to close the pod bay
doors - more or less as well if it were COK or CNT. Or even just plain BOB.
The options actually aren't particularly numerous, if you limit it to names.
No matter how you slice it, the entire IBM/HAL stink is so pungently
unimportant that were it not for Usenet I'd imagine the issue as a whole
would have faded long ago into the distance. I'm willing to accept that the
POSSIBILITY that either Clarke or Kubrick actually hid a little
joke/reference in there, but more importantly a) there's no positive
evidence, b) it's unproveable, and most importantly of all, c) I don't give
a rat's patoot. The other mysteries of "2001" engulf it.
- Dave
Bryce Utting
> I'm surprised nobody's pieced together yet how even Wheat's "conservative"
> rendition of Clarke's mathematics fails to take into account an actually
> quite important factor in the probability equations - namely, how Athena was
> renamed with a three-letter NAME, not simply a random string. Or at least a
> noun, or at the very, very least something pronounceable.
aye, but given a set of size n of mathematically-literate AMK posters
(or at least, more mathemathically-literate than Wheat), just how many
do *you* think want to risk provoking a follow-up from him?
maybe we can rent him that cave Timon lived in.
butting
Leonard F. Wheat
> Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
>
> > David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D1083F1...@rogers.com>...
> >
> >>Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D0E6DEE...@rogers.com>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
> >>>>> Oh, come now. Are the odds of 8,788 to 1 against the
> >>>>>HAL-IBM connection's being a coincidence speculation, or are they
> >>>>>fact? Is Kubrick's use of symbolic names speculation or fact?
> >>>>What a curious number. Apparently you've taken 26 and raised it to the
> >>>>power of 3 and then divided it by 2.
In effect, that IS what I did. But as I explained, what I
actually did was compute 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/8,788.
> >>>>This seems to me a rather funny abuse of mathematics . . .
> >>> The odds I gave, 8,788 to 1, are merely
> >>>a refinement of odds calculated by Clarke. In THE LOST WORLDS OF
> >>>2001, page 78, Clarke writes: "The odds are twenty-six cubed, or
> >>>17,576 to 1" that each letter of HAL could, by chance, be one
> >>>alphabetical notch BEHIND the corresponding letter of IBM. Clarke's
> >>>mathematical procedure is flawless, but I think an assumption he makes
> >>>inappropriately doubles the odds. So I have refined the assumption so
> >>>as to make the odds more conservative. (I didn't want to exaggerate
> >>>the odds.) I have assumed that the computer's name's letters could
> >>>also have been one notch BEYOND the letters of IBM.
> >>> . . . when you consider
> >>>>the absurdity of the underlying assumption (i.e. involving monkeys and
> >>>>typewriters). What is funny is that you offer a number with 4 signifi-
> >>>>cant digits when your number is probably off by 1 or 2 factors of 10.
> >>> Without realizing it, you have said that Clarke's flawlessly
> >>>computed probability is "off by 1 or 2 factors of 10." That's your
> >>>opinion, the opinion of a man who opened his mouth and removed all
> >>>doubt. Clarke, a mathematician who knows what he is talking about,
> >>>has a different opinion. His is the one to believe.
>
> >>The issue is not who's doing the math or whether the math is flawless.
> >>It's not the "math" but the "science" that I am questioning.> >>
> > First you didn't understand the math, and now you don't even
> > understand what the issue is. The issue is your statement that the
> > results of a simple mathematical procedure used by both Clarke and me
> > (and everyone else who computes simultaneous probabilities)
> > constituted a "rather funny ABUSE of mathematics." A corollary issue
> > is your further statement that the answer this procedure gives (odds
> > of 8,788 to 1)is "off by 1 or 2 factors of 10" (i.e., 10 to 20 times
> > too high). Now that you have been proven wrong, you resort to the
> > debate stratagem called "shifting ground," or diverting attention to
> > another issue that you pretend is the original issue.
> First of all, how can you say I didn't understand the math if I
> mentioned in my original post that you took 26, raised it to the 3rd
> power and divided it by 2?
You didn't understand the math because you said the
procedure was wrong. Not just wrong but "absurd" and "an abuse of
mathematics" -- so absurd that the resulting odds were 10 or 20 times
to high. Strictly speaking, you were referring to the calculated
odds, but if the odds that both Clarke and I calculated are "absurd,"
then the mathematical procedure used to get those odds is also
"absurd." I didn't say you didn't know what procedure I used.
> There is no shifting of ground whatsoever. My original
> point was that this calculation, however accurately performed,
> constituted an abuse of mathematics.
That was your ORIGINAL point (first post). But when I
pointed out how foolish your "absurd" and "abuse of mathematics"
remarks were, you pretended the real issue was one being discussed on
another thread -- the issue of how HAL could be related to IBM by
chance in the face of formidable odds. That is when you shifted
ground.
By this I was not quibbling with
> the purity of the math but with the application.
Totally wrong. We are discussing simultaneous probability,
or the probability that each of a certain number (three in this case)
probabilities will occur simultaneously. The standard formula for
simultaneous probability when there are three cases is A x B x C,
where A, B, and C are the three probabilities that might be realized
simultaneously. A x B x C is the math, and you said the answer this
math gives is "absurd." Obviously, you WERE questioning the purity of
the math. Now you're trying to cover your tracks.
> Your quote of my original post conveniently excludes the following words:
>
> What your probability theory does is assume an equal footing for
> patterns like FUK, USA, BIF, XXZ, DUM, GMC, GOD, and any number of
> triads (not to mention IBM, BMI and MIB ("men in black?")) which would
> be rejected by an ordinary person because they either carried too much
> meaning with them or not enough.
You're close to the truth, but what you say in no way
undermines the math you are attacking or the considerations that
underlie the simultaneous probability formula. What you call "YOUR
[my] probability theory" isn't mine at all: you can find it in any
college algebra textbook (possibly even in ninth grade algebra books).
It assumes "equal footing" not for multi-letter "patterns" but for
each letter within a pattern, such as HAL and your BIF. Each letter
has 1 chance in 26 of being chosen.
You say that many randomly resulting patterns "would be
rejected by an ordinary person." Of course. But that's entirely
beside the point. If 8,787 of the 8,788 possible patterns are non-HAL
patterns, some of these will indeed be nonsensical, "rejected by an
ordinary person." That has nothing to do with the correctness of the
mathematics, however.
David Kirkpatrick
Totally wrong? My interpretation of my own intentions? Are there no
limits to your authority?
Why on earth did I assume you understood the meaning of "absurd"?
My words (quoted above): "the absurdity of the underlying assumption
(i.e. involving monkeys and typewriters)." How can you interpret this
as a critique of a calculation when it is obviously a remark about the
assumption of randomness?
You can argue till you're blue in the face that you math is valid; I'm
telling you that your application of it is unsound.
Let me suggest an analogy. Suppose I were to claim that the odds
against you accidentally marrying your grandmother equalled the number
of women in the world (minus 1) to 1. There we have an even simpler
calculation, not A * B * C but simply A. How can you argue with that?
But surely it makes a difference whether or not you are inclined to
marry someone who looks much older than you, and it makes a difference
whether you are part of a small isolated tribe or whether you are from a
family of globetrotters, whether you are of obvious or unclear
ethnicity, and so on. Obviously the significance of the sheer
population of possibilities wanes in respect to the maze of assumptions
having to do with the real world. Depending on the circumstances, maybe
the odds are even more remote, or maybe they are closer. Whichever is
the case is not the point of this example. The point is, what if I were
to insist, "to hell with these assumptions about the real world, all
that matters is my calculation!"
You would be numbstruck. I would hope.
>>Your quote of my original post conveniently excludes the following words:
>>
>>What your probability theory does is assume an equal footing for
>>patterns like FUK, USA, BIF, XXZ, DUM, GMC, GOD, and any number of
>>triads (not to mention IBM, BMI and MIB ("men in black?")) which would
>>be rejected by an ordinary person because they either carried too much
>>meaning with them or not enough.
>>
>
> You're close to the truth, but what you say in no way
> undermines the math you are attacking or the considerations that
> underlie the simultaneous probability formula. What you call "YOUR
> [my] probability theory" isn't mine at all: you can find it in any
> college algebra textbook (possibly even in ninth grade algebra books).
> It assumes "equal footing" not for multi-letter "patterns" but for
> each letter within a pattern, such as HAL and your BIF. Each letter
> has 1 chance in 26 of being chosen.
>
> You say that many randomly resulting patterns "would be
> rejected by an ordinary person." Of course. But that's entirely
> beside the point. If 8,787 of the 8,788 possible patterns are non-HAL
> patterns, some of these will indeed be nonsensical, "rejected by an
> ordinary person." That has nothing to do with the correctness of the
> mathematics, however.
It's not the mathematics, it's the science.
David
Leonard F. Wheat
> Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
> > David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D11014B...@rogers.com>...
> >>Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
> >>>David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D1083F1...@rogers.com>...
> >>>>Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
> >>>>>David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D0E6DEE...@rogers.com>...
> >>>>>>[KIRKPATRICK:]What a curious number. Apparently you've taken 26 and
> >>>>>>raised it to the power of 3 and then divided it by 2.
> > In effect, that IS what I did. But as I explained, what I
> > actually did was compute 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/8,788.
> >>>>>>This seems to me a rather funny abuse of mathematics . . .
> >>>>> The odds I gave, 8,788 to 1, are merely
> >>>>>a refinement of odds calculated by Clarke. In THE LOST WORLDS OF
> >>>>>2001, page 78, Clarke writes: "The odds are twenty-six cubed, or
> >>>>>17,576 to 1" that each letter of HAL could, by chance, be one
> >>>>>alphabetical notch BEHIND the corresponding letter of IBM. Clarke's
> >>>>>mathematical procedure is flawless, but I think an assumption he makes
> >>>>>inappropriately doubles the odds. So I have refined the assumption so
> >>>>>as to make the odds more conservative. (I didn't want to exaggerate
> >>>>>the odds.) I have assumed that the computer's name's letters could
> >>>>>also have been one notch BEYOND the letters of IBM.
> >>>>The issue is not who's doing the math or whether the math is flawless.
> >>>>It's not the "math" but the "science" that I am questioning.
David:
On another thread I had written that the odds are 8,788 to 1
against each letter of the three-letter name HAL being both (a)
adjacent in the alphabet to the corresponding letter of IBM and (b) on
the same side of IBM (behind or beyond in the alphabet) as the other
two letters of HAL. You called my calculation "absurd," even though I
used the standard mathematical procedure for computing simultaneous
probability and even though the procedure was the same one used by
Arthur Clarke; Clarke's probability dealt with the situation where all
three letters of HAL were behind (not behind OR beyond) the letters of
IBM
To emphasize that it was the 8,788 to 1 probability that was
"absurd," you said this probability was 10 to 20 times too high
(meaning that the real probability was between about 880 to 1 and 440
to 1).
In response to my showing that the calculation follows
standard procedures and is correct, you have resorted to the old
tactic of "shifting ground," pretending that the issue is a related
but different one where you think you are on sounder ground. As a
result, we have a real issue and a phoney issue:
1. REAL ISSUE: Given that Kubrick did name the
computer HAL, what are the odds against each letter of HAL being both
(a) adjacent in the alphabet to the corresponding letter of IBM and
(b) on the same side of IBM (behind or beyond in the alphabet) as the
other two letters of HAL.
2. PHONEY ISSUE: Given that the vast majority of all
17,576 possible three-letter combinations in the alphabet (e.g., XXZ,
BIF) would be rejected by Kubrick because they are not plausible
names, what are the odds that HAL would be picked as the computer's
name. You say the number of possible candidates is more likely in the
hundreds or even dozens.
By way of clarifying our argument on the phoney issue, you
say an "almost endless list of names [letter combinations] would be
rejected [by Kubrick] for one reason or another." You add that "the
number of 3-letter male [why male?] names is severely limited." And
you say (in your latest post), "Obviously the significance of the
sheer population of possibilities [17,576 possible 3-letter
combinations] wanes in respect to the maze of assumptions having to do
with the real world." (In other words, you are saying the number of
NAMES is much smaller.)
I'm sorry, David, but you still don't grasp the issue.
We're not talking about the odds against HAL's being chosen as a name;
we're talking about the odds that a three-letter name (not necessarily
HAL) chosen for whatever reason would, by chance alone, have all three
of its letters adjacent to and on the same side of the three letters
of IBM. Those are two different calculations and two different
procedures and two different sets of odds.
But I nevertheless think it would be useful to combine your
issue with mine and see what that does to the odds. REVISED ISSUE:
What are the odds against Kubrick's choosing a name from all the
available NAMES (not from all available letter combinations) and
getting a name that (a) has three letters, (b) has each of its three
letters adjacent to the corresponding letter of IBM, and (c) has each
of its three letters on the same alphabetical side of IBM as the other
two letters.
Four assumptions you made are unreasonable, so I'm revising
them. First, this revised problem does not limit the choice of names
to three-letter names. Since you are denying my assertion that HAL is
based on IBM, you cannot reasonably demand that the computer's name
must be chosen from just the available 3-letter names. After all,
Kubrick's original names for the computer were Socrates (8 letters)
and Athena (6 latters). Second, the name cannot be limited to male
names. Kubrick was earlier going to use the name Athena, after the
Greek goddess, a female. (Allowing female names has very little
bearing on the calculation coming up.) Third, the name does not have
to be an acronym. I have shown that HAL is not a true acronym and,
anyhow, you can with enough effort make an acronym out of almost any
name. Fourth, the name chosen does not have to be HAL as long as it
has three letters. You based your argument on the probability of
choosing a three-letter name, not on the probability of choosing HAL
in particular.
Starting from these assumptions and the revised issue, we
have a new simultaneous probability calculation. This time there are
four probabilities being combined rather than three, so the formula is
A x B x C x D, where A, B, C, and D are the four probabilities.
Probability A is the probability that the name chosen will have 3
letters. Probability B is the probability that the name's first
letter will be adjacent to (one alphabetical notch behind OR beyond)
the letter I from IBM. Probabilities C and D are the probabilities
that the name's second and third letters will be adjacent to IBM's B
and M and on the same side of IBM as the name's first letter.
For illustrative purposes, I will assume that probability A (the
probability that the name chosen will have three letters) is 1 in 10.
I will later refine probability A. Given that probability A is 1/10,
the calculation is
1/10 x 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/87,880
or one chance in 87,880 that a three-letter name, not necessarily HAL,
would both (a) be chosen and (b) be related to IBM in the specified
manner.
Next, we try to refine assumption A. Kubrick is willing to
choose even the wildest and most improbably names, sometimes the
wilder the better. In Dr. Strangelove he used such names as Guano,
Ripper, Mandrake, Turgidson, Muffley, and de Sade-sky. So the names
can be implausible. They can come from any source: they can be
masculine or feminine, first names or surnames (fictional characters
often go by their surnames), given names or nicknames, Anglo-American
or non-Anglo, mythological, biblical, cartoon (e.g., Gonzo), or comic
strip.
All available names will fall into a frequency distribution
(bell curve) in which the intervals are defined by the number of
letters; the frequency for any interval (e.g., the 7-letter-name
interval) is the number of available names for that number of letters.
Almost all available names will have between 2 and 12 letters. As in
any bell-shaped probability distribution, the outside intervals (2 and
12 letters) will have the fewest cases (names); the middle intervals
will have the most. Thus the 2-letter interval will be limited to Al,
Am (God's name from the "Little Orphan Annie" comic strip), Bo, By,
Di, Ed, Em, Ez (Ezra, Ezzard), IZ (Isidore), Jo, Ra (Egyptian God),
Ty, and just a few others that I overlooked. The 12-letter names will
include Aliciajeanne, Aristophanes, La Adrienetta, Frankenstein,
Scheherazade, Rugglesworth (the butler, and a wonderful name for
Dave's servant!), Throckmorton, Czarnolewski, Gullinbarsti,
Rickenbacker, Rachmaninoff, Garciaguirre, Marcinkowski, and quite a
large number of other non-Anglo names.
There are names with 13 or more letters. Appassionatta,
Chrysanthemum, Gartenmeister, Grzegorzewski, Waljazakowski, and
Kyriacopoulos, among others, have 13 letters. Nebuchadnessar,
Czerniakiewicz, and Guerricagiotia have 14. Rumplestiltzkin,
Himmelschneider, Zerkenschneider, and Wienerschnitzel have 15.
Schwartzenneggar, Schwartzenheimer, and Papagiannopoulos have 16. And
so on. But we can combine these longer names with the 12-letter names
and label the revised upper-end category "12 or more letters."
So, we have 11 categories. The 2-letter and
12-or-more-letters categories have the fewest available names. The
3-letter and 11-letter categories have the next fewest. Since the
distribution is skewed (there's a long tail at the high end), the
highest frequency is probably the one below the middle category. The
middle category is the 7-letter-name category; the one below it is for
names with 6 letters. The next highest frequencies should be in the
5-letter, 7-letter, and 8-letter categories. An educated guess would
be that the 4-letter and 9-letter categories will have close to the
average number of names, or one-eleventh of the total number of names.
If every category had the same number of names, there would
be 1 chance in 11 that Kubrick would choose a 3-letter name. But
since the 3-letter-name category will have less than the average
number of names per category, there should be only one chance in, say,
13 to 15 that a 3-letter name would be chosen. To be conservative (to
keep the odds as low as possible to avoid overestimating the odds),
I'll assume 13 to 1 odds, or 1 chance in 13 that a 3-letter name would
be chosen.
We now have all four of our probabilities. The refined
probability calculation becomes
1/13 x 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/114,244
This means the odds are roughly (VERY roughly, because 1/13 is just a
rough estimate) 114,244 to 1 against Kubrick's choosing a name that
simultaneously has (a) three letters, (b) a first letter that is
adjacent to the latter I, either behind or beyond the I, (c) a second
letter that is adjacent to B and on the same side of IBM as the first
letter, and (d) a third letter that is adjacent to M and on the same
side of IBM as the first two letters. I'll gladly round that down to
100,000 to 1 so as to be even more conservative and to avoid false
precision.
Those revised odds (for the revised issue) are a far cry
from the odds of between around 50 to 1 ("in the dozens") or 500 to 1
("in the hundreds") that you were claiming. The difference is that
your methodology did not accommodate the three probabilities
concerning adjacency to the letters I, B, and M. Your math was
corrupt.
> Let me suggest an analogy. Suppose I were to claim that the odds
> against you accidentally marrying your grandmother equalled the number
> of women in the world (minus 1) to 1. There we have an even simpler
> calculation, not A * B * C but simply A. How can you argue with that?
Your analogy is invalid, because it contains nothing
analogous to HAL's being alphabetically adjacent to IBM.
> But surely it makes a difference whether or not you are inclined to
> marry someone who looks much older than you, and it makes a difference
> whether you are part of a small isolated tribe or whether you are from a
> family of globetrotters, whether you are of obvious or unclear
> ethnicity, and so on. Obviously the significance of the sheer
> population of possibilities wanes in respect to the maze of assumptions
> having to do with the real world.
Once again, you have nothing analogous to the HAL-IBM
relationship; it is the issue, that it has no analog in your analogy.
In your analogy, who you marry is the analog of what name Kubrick
chooses. Your argument is that the fewer women you have to choose
from, the lower are the odds against choosing a particular one. By
analogy, the fewer names Kubrick had to choose from, the lower the
odds of his choosing HAL. You then argue that he was limited to
actual 3-letter names, which are few in number. So, you say, the odds
were maybe only 500 to 1 or 50 to 1. (You're a dreamer if you think
there are only "a few dozen" three-letter names, but that's beside the
point.)
I repeat: Neither the odds against choosing HAL nor the odds
against choosing a 3-letter name are the issue. The argument you are
rebutting is my argument that the odds are 8,788 to 1 against all
three letters of HAL being adjacent to and on the same side of the
corresponding letters of IBM. This argument has nothing to do with
the statistical probability of HAL's being chosen from all available
names.
Furthermore, you can't limit the pool of available names to
3-letter names, because Kubrick was under no obligation to choose a
3-letter name. The total number of names in the pool is surely well
over 8,788, and probably above 25,000. (How many different first and
last names do you think you'd find in the London telephone directory
alone, not counting other sources?) So if we were doing a simple
one-step calculation of the probability of HAL's being chosen as a
name, the odds against it would be even more formidable than the 8,788
to 1 odds that apply to the original issue.
David Kirkpatrick
less respond to it.
David
Chris Cathcart
approximately 3,720 to one.
(You don't have to do this to impress me.)
lenw...@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat) wrote in message news:<b5f71a25.02062...@posting.google.com>...
> David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D1247E6...@rogers.com>...
> > Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
>
> > > David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D11014B...@rogers.com>...
>
> > >>Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
>
> > >>>David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D1083F1...@rogers.com>...
>
> > >>>>Leonard F. Wheat wrote:
>
> > >>>>>David Kirkpatrick <dak...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D0E6DEE...@rogers.com>...
>
> > >>>>>>[KIRKPATRICK:]What a curious number. Apparently you've taken 26 and
> > >>>>>>raised it to the power of 3 and then divided it by 2.
>
> > > In effect, that IS what I did. But as I explained, what I
> > > actually did was compute 2/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 = 1/8,788.
>
> > >>>>>>This seems to me a rather funny abuse of mathematics . . .
>
> > >>>>> The odds I gave, 8,788 to 1, are merely
> > >>>>>a refinement of odds calculated by Clarke. In THE LOST WORLDS OF
> > >>>>>2001, page 78, Clarke writes: "The odds are twenty-six cubed, or
> > >>>>>17,576 to 1" that each letter of HAL could, by chance, be one
> > >>>>>alphabetical notch BEHIND the corresponding letter of IBM. Clarke's
> > >>>>>mathematical procedure is
[etc. etc. etc. snipped]
kdc
"Chris Cathcart" <cath...@liquidinformation.com> wrote in message
news:b030b322.02062...@posting.google.com...
> Sirs, the odds of safely interpreting -2001: A Space Odyssey- are
> approximately 3,720 to one.
>
> (You don't have to do this to impress me.)
>
Wordsmith
*Pale Fire* is devastatingly original. It makes me think of what
Borges could have done had he chosen to write a novel. (But Borges
didn't *need* to write novels. His short tales are so concisely
constructed that he packs novel-quantity information into a scant few
pages. I envy such ability.) It would be a monumental challenge to
film *PF*. Are you listening, Mr. Malick?
Wordsmith :)
Bryce Utting
> *Pale Fire* is devastatingly original. It makes me think of what
> Borges could have done had he chosen to write a novel. (But Borges
> didn't *need* to write novels. His short tales are so concisely
> constructed that he packs novel-quantity information into a scant few
> pages. I envy such ability.) It would be a monumental challenge to
> film *PF*. Are you listening, Mr. Malick?
oi, 'SMITH! we *like* Mr. Malick! what for do you want to drive him
insane?
butting (wishes he'd thought of the Wheat-Kinbote parallel first)
Padraig L Henry
"By this art you may contemplate the variation of the 23 letters ..."
=========>The Anatomy of Melancholy, Part 2, Sec II, Mem IV, deposited
in The Library of Babel.
from an examination of the work of Herbert Quain, who has just "died"
at Roscommon and been alloted "scarcely half a column of necrological
piety" by The Times Literary Supplement, we have the following comment
from Borges concerning Quain's central metaphysical construction:
"Concerning this structure we might well repeat what Schopenhauer
declared of the twelve Kantian categories: everything is sacrificed to
a rage for symmetry."
Padraig
... there's some hidden niches in his homerwork.
Chris Cathcart
> "Chris Cathcart" <cath...@liquidinformation.com> wrote in message
> news:b030b322.02062...@posting.google.com...
> > Sirs, the odds of safely interpreting -2001: A Space Odyssey- are
> > approximately 3,720 to one.
> >
> > (You don't have to do this to impress me.)
> >
> Never tell me the odds.
If I may venture an opinion: it's quite possible this newsgroup is not
entirely stable.
iHĞ
<dak...@rogers.com> wrote:
>HAL is both a man's name and a creditable acronym (the real-world rules
>for acronyms is not so purist as Wheat suggests) for a type of
>artificial intelligence. That HAL sounds a bit like "whole" and a bit
>like "hell" seems more interesting to me than any hidden numerology to
>it.
Yes, HAL 9000, whose name is -- on the face of it -- an impersonal
product code, but which the humans who interact with HAL naturally
enough use as his person-name.
And this being Kubrick, it's not just any name but one with certain
cultural resonances applicable to his character: "HALlowed be his
name" in the "halcyon days of our youth," a stage in our development
where we greet the creation of this humanoid artificial life with
hallelujahs.* So impressed are we by "infallible" HAL's intellect
that we straightaway, with child-like faith, entrust him with
omnipotence and omniscience over our lives as we pursue our mission of
discovery.
We even suspend our best human minds in HAL's artificial wombs
(resembling the sarcophagi which they become), believing -- fatally,
as Kubrick shows -- that an automaton can be handed the role of a
protective, loving mother. (It is only fitting that HAL is endowed
with a male identity, for he appears to owe his existence -- almost
solely, one feels -- to men).
HAL, whose hollow core resembles a hall (hallowed hall?) lined with
livid-red book-shaped "intelligence functions," the methodical removal
of which -- like so many volumes from their library shelves -- not
only destroys him but is the one pain he can truly "feel". Heartless
HAL, capable of producing pity in us but not of pitying, never a whole
being let alone a holy one. And certainly not "hale", neither in the
sense of wholeness nor health nor, of course, heartiness; perhaps
"hale" with the "e" (for emotion or embodiment) left out. Not whole,
then, but quite credibly a sort of hole, a dangerous man-trap offering
only illusory shelter and companionship.
HAL, the cul-de-sac for humans, who by the time of his creation, in a
lineage directly traceable to that sky-hurled bone, has become the
tool that acts independently of its maker, including against him
without hesitation: Dr Strangelove's doomsday device revisited in its
final form.
How did the bright sparks who created him miss the possibility that
without a heart HAL might well murder them at the drop of a helmet?
> But my point isn't to defend the validity of my
>interpretations but rather the essential validity of the more humanistic
>approaches of those critics in contrast to the pseudo-science of
>encryption and decryption.
Agreed again. What the above somewhat Luddite ramblings show, I hope,
is that Kubrick succeeded in his stated aim of provoking speculation
in viewers of 2001:ASO. What you take from 2001, both immediately and
in its long-term impact, depends largely on what you bring to it,
including your sense of what really matters and what doesn't.
I find it unlikely that any mechanistic "key" could unlock all the
rich seams of thought and feeling that went into the film and lay them
bare like a diagram (which is not what I think L.F. Wheat is trying to
do here, by the way).
Which is not to say that many little jokes as well as references and
allusions aren't hidden in 2001, waiting to be discovered and enjoyed
-- for the most part speculatively, of course. Some are bound to be
more tangible than others, but it may be that, to borrow the old
paraphrasing, what's tangible isn't so significant and what's
significant isn't so tangible.
While I'm speculating in this vein myself: The mysterious "Jupiter and
Beyond the Infinite" line could be a sly reference to Einstein's
famous quip, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." It's at least a
context in which the phrase makes sense (the star-child is no longer
infinitely stupid), but of course "Beyond the Infinite" as a
mind-expanding, Zen-like, paradoxical concept is beautiful and apt
enough in itself.
And come to think of it, how would HAL have responded to viewing
2001:ASO? We see him performing a little art criticism within the
film itself -- but could he have actually enjoyed the film (storyline
apart!)? HAL would probably do a great job of analyzing 2001:ASO
schematically and (I suppose) thematically, but would he get as
excited over it as we do? Would it make him feel he was "dreaming
with his eyes wide open," like Zefirelli? Would he want to sit in the
middle of the front row at a 70mm presentation? Hell no -- nor of
course would he need or want to watch this or any of Kubrick's other
works over and over for sheer pleasure of it. Let's face it -- HAL is
just about the most ALIEN thing in the movie. :)
*(HAL, a fictional false god whose name is chanted in millions of
churches every day.)
Leonard F. Wheat
> How did the bright sparks who created him miss the possibility that
> without a heart HAL might well murder them at the drop of a helmet?
Watch those typos. I think you meant "at the drop of a
HALmet."
>
> Which is not to say that many little jokes as well as references and
> allusions aren't hidden in 2001, waiting to be discovered and enjoyed
> -- for the most part speculatively, of course.
My favorite 2001 joke is the bony God (Hal-Discovery) who is
made from a bone. Almost as good is God's sophistication: he uses
bathrooms when he goes to the bathroom.
I'm not the first to notice Discovery's (God's)
anthropomorphic, skeletal body. There is a bulbous skull up front
with three mouths (pod bay doors), each of which is capable of
sticking out it's tongue (pod launching ramp) and blowing a bubble
(spherical space pod). God wears stylish wide-band sunglasses (the
window panel). His skull tapers off in back to a neck, beyond which
is the normal segmented human spine. At the base of the spine, where
it belongs is the elongated sacrum (tailbone). And below the sacrum,
where they belong, are three pairs of excretory orifices (rocket
nozzles), one pair for each of Discovery's (God's) three mouths.
Now comes the big joke. Each pair of rocket nozzles is
enclosed in a hexagon. Why a hexagon? Why not squares or circles or
nothing? Back when I was growing up (same time Kubrick was growing
up) most bathrooms had white tile floors. They used one-inch
hexagonal tiles laid in a honeycomb pattern. These hexagonal-tile
floors were in vogue from about 1900 until World War II. The hexagons
at Discovery's rear end symbolize bathroom tiles. Discovery does his
excreting in bathrooms!
> While I'm speculating in this vein myself: The mysterious "Jupiter and
> Beyond the Infinite" line could be a sly reference to Einstein's
> famous quip, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
> stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
That is a nice quip, but it's not what "Jupiter and Beyond
the Infinite" refer to. Just about everyone has given this phrase a
spatial meaning: Bowman is about to be launched into the infinite
depths of space. But the phrase really has a temporal meaning.
"Beyond" means AFTER. At this point in the story, God: Bowman has
just killed Hal. (Nietzsche's "God is dead!" had been symbolized.)
What happens next happens AFTER the death of God.
"The Infinite," in turn, is God. Paul Tillich, who was the
leading Protestant theologian at the time of his death in 1965, often
referred to God as "the infinite." In his writing we find such
phrases as "God is the infinite." And "the finite cannot force the
infinite; man cannot compel God." And there is "ESSENTIAL unity of
the finite [man] and the infinite [God]." But "man is ACTUALLY
separated [estranged] from the infinite [God]." And "man must ask
about the infinite [God] from which he is estranged." And
"being-itself [another name for God] transcends every finite being
[every man] infinitely; God in the divine-human encounter transcends
man unconditionally." And "the name of this infinite and
inexhaustible ground of history is God."
So, "beyond" means after, and "the infinite" means God. God
has just died. "Beyond the Infinite" means "After God"----after the
death of God. Part 3 is about what happens in the Zarathustra
allegory after the death of God.
kdc
Seeing that the phrase "Beyond The Infinite" holds a hidden meaning, we
should also expect that the name "Jupiter" holds a hidden meaning more than
simply identifying which planet Bowman happens to be near. Jupiter is the
King Of The Gods, ie, the ultimate god. Bowman is about to be launched
beyond Jupiter both spatially and developmentally on his evolutionary
journey to becoming Overman.
Also consider that "Jupiter" is an anagram of "rip jute". "jute" is a plant
which yields a strong fiber used to make sacking and rope. Bowman is about
to rip-free/break-free of all the bonds/ropes/sacks which might restrain him
from completing the journey. Kubrick is also hinting at the amnion, or
fetal sac(k), images which will be seen in the upcoming 'hotel room'
sequence.
Thornhill
Your commentary holds no water, so to speak, since the Discovery was
originally supposed to go to Saturn......"Bringer of Old Age,"
etc.,.......except for those darned special effects that always
commandeer and dictate visions, even those of Kubrick. He was a
realistic visionary. As for the fancies you and Mr. Wheat are happy
to spin (like the rings around Saturn, eh?), you might benefit from
learning to separate the Wheat from the chaff, though that's an
oxymoron, I'm afraid.
Thornhill
kdc
"Thornhill" <cthor...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ded391d8.02062...@posting.google.com...
I really don't see what the non-retention of precious h-2-o or any other
essential fluid has to do with where the wind goes at night.
Fanciful,
--- kdc