Reply to Topic
Note: This thread is not necessarily inspired by The Matrix, though it might address somewhat similar themes.
A while ago, I posted this note in the thread on Movie Obsession:
I think it boils down to an issue of perception--more specifically, the human perception of reality.
I would argue that, on the average, about 25% of individual perception of reality is related to a direct, first-hand experience of reality, and about 75% is related to an indirect, second-hand experience of reality, which derives from word-of-mouth, media sources, literary sources, reference documentation, artistic representation, etc. The reason for this is that direct, first-hand experience of reality is inherently severely limited and restrictive, and if one were to rely exclusively on it, one's knowledge and perception of the universe would inevitably be as limited and restrictive. For example, we know that the world is spherical because we are so instructed by our schoolteachers and text books--indirect, 2nd hand experience. If we were to rely exclusively on direct, 1st hand experience, we would, in all probability, be convinced that the earth is flat.
With 2nd hand experience of reality, which, as I noted above, probably accounts for about 75% of an average individual's experience of reality--of the universe he/she inhabits--there are two fundamental issues: reliability and persuasiveness. The most reliable sources, such as reference documentation, etc., are not necessarily the most persuasive, while the most persuasive sources, such as art, propaganda, cinema, etc., are not necessarily the most reliable.
Cinema is, arguably, the most persuasive and least reliable of all such second-hand sources. It is the most persuasive, especially at a subliminal level of acceptance, because it almost creates a virtual reality, almost reproducing one's experience of reality through visual and auditory stimuli. It is the least reliable owing to the fact that the director has a free hand in doing what he likes with the camera lens--with modern digital special effects, especially, but also through selective editing and the selective process that constitutes cinematic photography--the selective camera lens. Thus, cinema is not necessarily an accurate representation of reality and, more often than not, it is a fabrication, ergo, deceptive and unreliable, albeit entertaining and diversionary.
I would argue that, on the average, about 25% of individual perception of reality is related to a direct, first-hand experience of reality, and about 75% is related to an indirect, second-hand experience of reality, which derives from word-of-mouth, media sources, literary sources, reference documentation, artistic representation, etc. The reason for this is that direct, first-hand experience of reality is inherently severely limited and restrictive, and if one were to rely exclusively on it, one's knowledge and perception of the universe would inevitably be as limited and restrictive. For example, we know that the world is spherical because we are so instructed by our schoolteachers and text books--indirect, 2nd hand experience. If we were to rely exclusively on direct, 1st hand experience, we would, in all probability, be convinced that the earth is flat.
With 2nd hand experience of reality, which, as I noted above, probably accounts for about 75% of an average individual's experience of reality--of the universe he/she inhabits--there are two fundamental issues: reliability and persuasiveness. The most reliable sources, such as reference documentation, etc., are not necessarily the most persuasive, while the most persuasive sources, such as art, propaganda, cinema, etc., are not necessarily the most reliable.
Cinema is, arguably, the most persuasive and least reliable of all such second-hand sources. It is the most persuasive, especially at a subliminal level of acceptance, because it almost creates a virtual reality, almost reproducing one's experience of reality through visual and auditory stimuli. It is the least reliable owing to the fact that the director has a free hand in doing what he likes with the camera lens--with modern digital special effects, especially, but also through selective editing and the selective process that constitutes cinematic photography--the selective camera lens. Thus, cinema is not necessarily an accurate representation of reality and, more often than not, it is a fabrication, ergo, deceptive and unreliable, albeit entertaining and diversionary.
For most people, their "window into reality" is the TV or monitor screen. As I noted above, our perception of reality is largely dictated and, hence, CONTROLLED by second-hand sources. Most people get their news by watching it on TV or reading the newspaper or, increasingly, from the internet--as opposed to experiencing it first-hand. These are, supposedly, the "reliable sources of information"--documentary reference. But how reliable are even these sources? Can we really take them for granted? Only recently, the New York Times, supposedly the bastion for reliability in the news media, had to sack one of their prominent journalists for contriving news stories. This led to the resignation of several of their leading management. How objective and reliable are the supposedly reliable sources of information in our Information Age?
We graduate from school and university with a certain body of knowledge upon which we base our subsequent lives, to a great extent. But how reliable is this knowledge? Text books are written by human beings, after all. Where do you draw the line between objective information and subjective interpretation--even in supposedly objective sources of information such as university text books and reference documentation? Just how objective and neutral and free from bias are these supposedly reliable, objective sources of information? If you read the supposedly objective scientific documentation and news sources of the 19th century and early 20th century, for example, you will find that it is loaded with a colonial bias which would be extremely offensive to the modern sensibility, yet it was the norm back then because pretty much everybody accepted it and took it for granted. Just as they took racial discrimination for granted before the Civil Rights movement, and the fact that the earth was flat for granted before Columbus and Magellan proved otherwise.
This is a short one-act play I posted a while ago in another thread:
Is the World Flat?
A One-Act Play
By Uday Gunjikar
(Scene: Christopher Columbus addresses the "Flat Earth Society" in 15th Century Genoa, Italy)
Columbus: . . . And so, as you can see, my mathematical calculations and scientific observations clearly and indisputably prove that the earth is a sphere. Any questions?
(Onlooker in front row raises his hand)
Columbus: Yes?
1st Onlooker: But what does it all mean?
Columbus: Well, in layman’s terms, it means, simply, that the world is round.
1st Onlooker: The world is round??!! That’s ridiculous! Are you trying to tell us that the world we live on is round?
Columbus: As a matter of fact, yes.
1st Onlooker: What? Like a ball?
Columbus: Yes.
(Everybody laughs. Another onlooker from the back row speaks up.)
2nd Onlooker: But that’s totally absurd! I mean, look around you. Does the world even look like it’s round? Look at the ground. Does it look like a sphere? I mean, common knowledge clearly demonstrates--the facts clearly demonstrate--that the world is as flat as a pancake. How could it be otherwise?
Columbus: But my mathematical calculations and scientific measurements clearly prove otherwise.
2nd Onlooker: Is that so? Are you trying to tell us that some obscure mathematical calculations (quiet snickering and muffled laugher) and scientific measurements are more reliable than the collective opinions of all of us? I mean, we are the "Flat Earth Society"--our very existence is based on asserting the obvious, indisputable fact that the world is flat. And you come here with your mathematical calculations suggesting otherwise?
Columbus: In a word, yes.
(Another onlooker pipes up from the middle of the crowd).
3rd Onlooker: Let’s have a quick show of hands, shall we? Who believes that the earth is flat?
(Everybody raises their hand except Columbus)
3rd Onlooker: So you see, Signor Columbus? The consensus is clearly overwhelmingly opposed to you. What do you say to the fact that you are in a minority of one? To the fact that the entire population of the known world clearly knows, for a fact, that the earth is flat, whereas all you have to present us with are some whacko, way-out mathematical calculations and scientific measurements to try and prove otherwise? I mean, who’s going to believe something as ridiculous, as absurd as that?
(Another onlooker pipes up)
4th Onlooker: Tell us, Signor Columbus, how do you explain the fact that no one agrees with anything you say?
Columbus: It’s very simple. The truth is that all of you have been deceived by the enormous size of the earth and the result that the curvature of the earth is so small as to be almost invisible to the naked eye. To say nothing of the earth’s uneven terrain--hills, valleys, and so forth. However, if one takes the time and trouble to make a few careful observations, the curvature of the earth becomes indisputably apparent. A few simple experiments can prove this.
4th Onlooker: Look, I won’t even pretend to understand any of this gobbledegook you just said. All I’m saying is, "When are you going to quit making a public fool of yourself and simply fall in line with the rest of us, who know for a fact that the earth is flat?" I mean, all you have to offer us are some way-out calculations and stuff. How convincing is that?
(Another onlooker speaks up)
5th Onlooker: Just how comfortable is it being in a minority of one, Signor Columbus? When you pretty much have the whole world against you while all you have to offer are some mathematical calculations that no one understands, you have to wonder whether maybe you are being just a tad schizophrenic and out of touch with reality, wouldn’t you say?
1st Onlooker: Yeah, and besides all that, we, the Board of Directors of the "Flat Earth Society," personally have a great deal of money invested in continuing the proposition that the world is flat. So if you refuse to fall in line and accept what we tell you, we will feel compelled to relentlessly hound you and mercilessly persecute you until you cave in to our demands!
(At this point, the room erupts with jeers and cries of consent to the 1st onlooker’s words. A few audience members begin chanting the anthem of the "Flat Earth Society":
"The world is flat,
As we all know,
And that is that!
So get on with the show!")
Columbus: Oh yeah? So you expect me to fall in line with the rest of you so that I can proudly claim to be as deluded, ignorant and flat-out mistaken as the members of the "Flat Earth Society," while all along I happen to know better? Not likely! You see, there’s a little ocean voyage that I plan to take to prove you all wrong! Just you wait and see!
(The crowd continues to boo and jeer as Columbus makes his exit.)
Chorus: . . . And the rest, as they say, is history!
THE END
A One-Act Play
By Uday Gunjikar
(Scene: Christopher Columbus addresses the "Flat Earth Society" in 15th Century Genoa, Italy)
Columbus: . . . And so, as you can see, my mathematical calculations and scientific observations clearly and indisputably prove that the earth is a sphere. Any questions?
(Onlooker in front row raises his hand)
Columbus: Yes?
1st Onlooker: But what does it all mean?
Columbus: Well, in layman’s terms, it means, simply, that the world is round.
1st Onlooker: The world is round??!! That’s ridiculous! Are you trying to tell us that the world we live on is round?
Columbus: As a matter of fact, yes.
1st Onlooker: What? Like a ball?
Columbus: Yes.
(Everybody laughs. Another onlooker from the back row speaks up.)
2nd Onlooker: But that’s totally absurd! I mean, look around you. Does the world even look like it’s round? Look at the ground. Does it look like a sphere? I mean, common knowledge clearly demonstrates--the facts clearly demonstrate--that the world is as flat as a pancake. How could it be otherwise?
Columbus: But my mathematical calculations and scientific measurements clearly prove otherwise.
2nd Onlooker: Is that so? Are you trying to tell us that some obscure mathematical calculations (quiet snickering and muffled laugher) and scientific measurements are more reliable than the collective opinions of all of us? I mean, we are the "Flat Earth Society"--our very existence is based on asserting the obvious, indisputable fact that the world is flat. And you come here with your mathematical calculations suggesting otherwise?
Columbus: In a word, yes.
(Another onlooker pipes up from the middle of the crowd).
3rd Onlooker: Let’s have a quick show of hands, shall we? Who believes that the earth is flat?
(Everybody raises their hand except Columbus)
3rd Onlooker: So you see, Signor Columbus? The consensus is clearly overwhelmingly opposed to you. What do you say to the fact that you are in a minority of one? To the fact that the entire population of the known world clearly knows, for a fact, that the earth is flat, whereas all you have to present us with are some whacko, way-out mathematical calculations and scientific measurements to try and prove otherwise? I mean, who’s going to believe something as ridiculous, as absurd as that?
(Another onlooker pipes up)
4th Onlooker: Tell us, Signor Columbus, how do you explain the fact that no one agrees with anything you say?
Columbus: It’s very simple. The truth is that all of you have been deceived by the enormous size of the earth and the result that the curvature of the earth is so small as to be almost invisible to the naked eye. To say nothing of the earth’s uneven terrain--hills, valleys, and so forth. However, if one takes the time and trouble to make a few careful observations, the curvature of the earth becomes indisputably apparent. A few simple experiments can prove this.
4th Onlooker: Look, I won’t even pretend to understand any of this gobbledegook you just said. All I’m saying is, "When are you going to quit making a public fool of yourself and simply fall in line with the rest of us, who know for a fact that the earth is flat?" I mean, all you have to offer us are some way-out calculations and stuff. How convincing is that?
(Another onlooker speaks up)
5th Onlooker: Just how comfortable is it being in a minority of one, Signor Columbus? When you pretty much have the whole world against you while all you have to offer are some mathematical calculations that no one understands, you have to wonder whether maybe you are being just a tad schizophrenic and out of touch with reality, wouldn’t you say?
1st Onlooker: Yeah, and besides all that, we, the Board of Directors of the "Flat Earth Society," personally have a great deal of money invested in continuing the proposition that the world is flat. So if you refuse to fall in line and accept what we tell you, we will feel compelled to relentlessly hound you and mercilessly persecute you until you cave in to our demands!
(At this point, the room erupts with jeers and cries of consent to the 1st onlooker’s words. A few audience members begin chanting the anthem of the "Flat Earth Society":
"The world is flat,
As we all know,
And that is that!
So get on with the show!")
Columbus: Oh yeah? So you expect me to fall in line with the rest of you so that I can proudly claim to be as deluded, ignorant and flat-out mistaken as the members of the "Flat Earth Society," while all along I happen to know better? Not likely! You see, there’s a little ocean voyage that I plan to take to prove you all wrong! Just you wait and see!
(The crowd continues to boo and jeer as Columbus makes his exit.)
Chorus: . . . And the rest, as they say, is history!
THE END
Last edited by Django; 06-14-03 at 03:24 PM.
