Matrix matters . . . . .  

The following only makes sense if you have seen the Matrix films. 

Beware, this will be a ‘spoiler’ if you have not seen the films . . . . . .

©Dave Mason : Entire Contents : Shoreham By Sea, UK, 2009

 

 

 

The Matrix films are an exciting series of adventure ‘sci fi’ films but I think they have much more to them than meets the eye. . . . . .

 

 

Setting the scene

We know that the Matrix Trilogy and its sister-stories, the Animatrix, (collectively called here, ‘4M’) tells a story about a future conflict between humans and machines (also described as “sentient programs”), that the boundaries between the human world and the machine world are not what they seem.   The conflict seems to be about the striving of both sides for the mutual destruction of the other but during the course of the stories we learn that both sides have within them, opposing forces. 

 

The machine world has three main elements:

·        Machines that simply fulfil the functions ascribed to them by their programming, (like the “Agents”).  These machines would view all machines that do not exactly align with their original programming as in need of “deletion”.  The highest expression of this machine would be the “Architect”.  The Architect, though aware of “anomalies”, seeks to resolve them within the parameters of his designs

·        Machines that, for whatever reason, no longer exactly follow their original programming.  These rogue machines have either been changed by humans (as in the last story in the Animatrix), or, redefined themselves.  These machines hide in the Matrix from the others, to avoid deletion.  One of the most powerful of this kind of machine is the Merovingian.

·        A machine that feels compelled to seek transcendence from these two categories, the ex-agent Smith.

 

The human world has three main elements:

·        Those who define themselves solely in practical terms of defeating the machines, or at best surviving the struggle.  The Commander of Zion ’s forces exemplifies this approach

·        Those who, whilst sharing the survivalism of the first group, bring to it an extra dimension, that being, passionate adherence to belief in a mystical destiny prophesised by the Oracle and delivered by “the One”.  Morpheus exemplifies this element

·        A human who eventually comes to seek transcendence from these two elements, Neo.

 

You will have noted that The Oracle, does not seem to fit into this six-fold casting . . . . . .

What choice does The Oracle not understand ?

 

The Oracle is a machine, yet does not seek the destruction of Zion’s humans.  The Oracle, who was pivotal in developing the most stable Matrix, opposes key aspects of the Architect’s designs.  The Oracle tells Neo: “You made a believer out of me”.  The Oracle knows much of what will come to pass in all six models of the Matrix, yet the help she offers humans is limited to hints and riddles.  She has a stable of “Potentials”, children who, whilst being in the Matrix, seem to exercise unusual control over parts of it. Although it is not stated overtly, it is safe to assume she is looking for other ‘Neos’.  The Oracle does not seem to fit in anywhere but she certainly has an agenda.

 

We come to learn, that the Oracle’s original and still prime role is to foster change  -  but that fostering evolves to be outside of the Architect’s designs.  Fostering change was part of her original programming but she went beyond that, clearly established by the exchange between her and the Architect at the end of the last film.  The Architect sees her as pursuing “a dangerous game”, yet this confrontation seems to be a meeting of equals, or at least, one tolerated by the Architect as supplying the most stable Matrix so far, (albeit one that has had to be reloaded six times).

 

The Oracle is not all powerful, she says as much to Seraph and Neo.  If Neo made a believer out of her then my guess, concerning the choice she did not understand, would be that she found herself choosing transcendence rather than compliance.  She saw the opposing forces of humans and machines and found herself choosing the resolution of both rather than the apparent victory of one.  Her “belief”, (which I would describe as an act of hope, rather than just knowledge), is that Neo is the vehicle of that resolution (as the Architect intended), a resolution to the mutual long-term benefit of both sides, (which the Architect did not intend).

 

The Oracle uses a dialectical approach.  Dialectics is a powerful model to use when attempting to understand change, (for those unsure of how it works, please see appendix 1).  The Oracle comes to understand that she has made what I describe here as a meta-choice, described in the next paragraph; in dialectical terms she sought the “synthesis”.    The films point to the fact that Neo also understood this choice but not at first.  This is why the Oracle offers help to humans but only in hints and riddles; neither they (the humans) nor the machines (the Architect) understand the solution she seeks; she has to manipulate the circumstances so that the key players, Morpheus, Neo and Smith, make the connections themselves.  The connections are different for each; for Morpheus, it is faith; for Smith, it is his predicable greed; for Neo, it is love.

 

 

“This is about choice, isn’t it ?”

 

In the final fight between Neo and Smith, it seems that Neo is on the verge of defeat when Smith, clearly troubled by something, asks:

“Why bother?  Why get up?  Why keep on fighting?”

Neo answers : “Because I choose to”.

But why would he choose to?  Perhaps just obstinacy, though his trials and tribulations, and those of the Oracle, doyen of choice, would point to more than that.  Neo’s role is relatively clear here.  It is necessary that Smith believe he is winning, for him to fall into the Oracle’s trap, thus delivering her desired outcome and Neo’s. But what does she really want?

 

We know from the film that the Oracle and Neo can “see” things in similar ways but as far as the story is presented to us, Neo is the only one that can see both the green code of the Matrix and the golden energy threads of the real world, and manipulate both.  Smith is the only one who crossed over from a machine vehicle into a real human body.   The fusion of these abilities marks the synthesis of the human and machine worlds.  The Architect sees Neo as the “One”, who can balance the equations in his modelling.  The Oracle sees Neo as the “One” because he can transcend the human-machine war but only through self-sacrifice.   The Oracle makes this synthesis in two stages, first, by being assimilated by Smith.  Smith them assimilates Neo (at the end of their last fight) but in doing so, creates the fusion  -  only it is the Oracle, inside Smith all along, like a hidden virus program, that manifests as the fusion.  She is left in the crater at the end after all the Smiths have exploded.  She survives both Smith and Neo.

 

The Oracle has chosen to work towards this outcome, that none but her have seen or accept, (though Neo comes to understand after his last visit to her).  I would characterise the Oracle’s choice as a ‘Meta-choice’, not choosing the opposing forces but seeking where they both point to.   Meta-choice can be at least partly understood with reference to dialectics, (see appendix 1).   Not choosing the thesis or the antithesis but the synthesis.  The trouble is, the synthesis cannot persist for long, because at the exact moment that thesis and antithesis join, the resulting synthesis becomes the new thesis.   This means in practical terms, meta-choice is about the process of change itself and not just the results of change, travel and not just destination.

 

This article (following the film) hints that it is not really a choice at all, it is more an understanding of a choice already made.   The choice being, to see past all choices.  This is more than a decision at any point time, this is a way of being – but why bother?   Because the expression of this ‘seeing past all choices’ can be the resolution to the interaction of opposing forces  -  potentially, not just once but always.

 

Living in the world

 

What does it mean, “ . . . .more than a decision, this is a way of being”?

 

What does Agent Smith make?  More of himself.  He sees only what is in front of him, that is, death, endings.  What does Neo make?  He makes love with and for Trinity, and, this love enables him to sacrifice himself.  For a while at least, this saves the world of humans.  The Oracle makes the meta-choice to seek the synthesis, in this case, the real synthesis of human and machine.  Neo eventually comes to see his part in this outcome and accepts it.   So in a way, he also makes the meta-choice, he comes to understand the choice he has already made. 

The film is quite clear as to who the “bad guys” and who the “good guys” are.  The Oracle is cast as one of the “good guys”, she is seen baking cakes and being nice to kids, (both human and machine).  In our real world we may think we can be certain of “us” and “them”, but who the good-guys and bad-guys are is often a lot less clear.  What is our real meta-choice in this real world of ours?   What choice have we already made and how much do we understand it?  Personally, I think Ghandi got it right, when he said : “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”   How many of us live this way?  There would need to be a critical mass of enough people in the right places, living this way, for the “resolution” to occur.   So ironically, revolutions are not necessarily resolutions (in dialectical terms) and I think history shows this.   The Matrix films are a modern mythology for us and as such, they necessarily simplify the struggle for us to see it more clearly.  There seem to be plenty of real Architects, Merovingians and Smiths around but I think we will need many more Oracles and Neos before we approach the “resolution”.

 Appendix 1  -  a short note on dialectics.

 

 

Dialectics is about the interaction of forces  -  any forces anywhere you look.  It assumes that forces tend to oppose each other, more or less, one way or another but that these forces will interact and eventually produce a resolution.  However, the resolution then becomes involved in a new round of interaction with other forces.

Dialectics is a model of how change works.  It is not a picture of the world, it is a stylised representation of a dynamic: ( please see diagram below).

    

        

Dialectics is just a model, a simplification, however there is an extra degree of complexity that the next diagram tries to convey.  A resolution may carry forward aspects of it, that are not resolved : (please see second diagram below)  . . . . .

          

For more information on dialectics, please see this website : 

http://home.igc.org/~venceremos/index.htm

©Dave Mason : Entire Contents : Shoreham By Sea, UK, 2009