I watched a short clip of a recent interview with Noam Chomsky last night. Had he been at my supper table, I would have asked him to discuss the idea of dissent. "Mr. Chomsky," I would say, "Why are some questions socially unaskable? Why are some people politically untouchable? Why are some issues ethically unbreachable? Why do some questions bring praise and others bring prison?"
I want to know more than just why these things are not available for general discussion, but why most of us have ingrained in our conscience, the awareness of which issues to avoid. Who tells us that we should be cautious if our criticisms on an issue like conflicts in the Israel, who tells us that we should not be as hard on the Israeli's as we are on the Palestinians. Where do we learn that we should exercise extreme caution when questioning the government's intentions, methods or results in Iraq? How do we know these things?
It is more than just an extension of Political Correctness. I think it is a systemic bias that plagues our 'free' western world. But how? Where? and Why?
Comments?
After watching the final Matrix movie, I decided that there is more to my life than pinning the hopes and dreams of my future on the meanderings of moviemakers.
I was at once entertained and annoyed with part III. As a sci-fi action flick, it was great, but as a part of the matrix trilogy, it was a bit of a betrayal.
It could have redeemed part two in so many ways and in doing so itself become great; instead, it made it all but meaningless.
Part I introduced a world that evoked wonderment, confusion and audience loyalty. It told us of a place, so similar to our own, that may or may not exist. It held back from revealing facts until our questioning became overwhelming. It introduced characters of mystery and twists of complete originality.
Having seen so many twists of reality in Part I, the audience could not help but ask those same questions about Part II. "What is real?” "How did they do that?", "Why could they do that?", "Who is real?", etc.
And then Part III; It could have fed on these questions. "Who is the Merovingian?” "What was real or fake?", "What did eating (candy, cookies and pills) have to do with the Matrix?", "Was Zion real?", "Is Neo real?", "Is anything real?". Instead, Part III basically said, "No, any questions you thought you had to ask in Part II, you do not need to ask. Everything you need to know, you learned in Part I, everything in Part II and Part III should be taken at face value and not thought about too deeply. Any confusion in part II was a red herring at best and a banal philosophical moot point at worst. There are machines, there are humans, there is a place called the matrix, there is a place called Zion, there is a virus in the system call Smith, Neo stopped Smith, now there is peace. The end."
That is what I found so frustrating. The first movie was about the world and its inhabitants, either real or programmed. The rest of the series seemed to take a footnote from Part I (Agent Smith) and turn it into the means for two more movies. Sure, it could be interesting, but the relationship that is most interesting is the one between Humanity and Machines. Develop this; Explore this; Resolve this in it's own right, not cast against a footnote like Agent Smith.
But really, who cares, right? It is just a movie. There is no spoon, no underlying mystery and no real questions. Blah.