It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 10:20 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
LONG-TERM PROSPECTS
FOR DEVELOPMENTS IN SPACE
(A SCENARIO APPROACH)
By
William M. Brown and Herman Kahn
HI-2638-RR October 30, 1977

Prepared for
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Under Contract NASW-2924


Much of the technological information on which this study is based
was derived from existing NASA studies--especially the Outlook for Space
and A Forecast of Space Technology, 1980-2000. We have also drawn freely
from Arthur Clarke, Krafft Ehricke, Gerard O'Neill, Jesco von Puttkamer,
and many others. We have benefited from critiques of prior drafts by
numerous NASA personnel, especially Dennis E. Fielder, Robert F. Freitag,
H. Hertzfeld, W. Ray Hook, C. C. Priest and Nathaniel B. Cohen, our
industrious and helpful contract monitor.
(etc)

Quote:
A. Introduction
The basic purpose of this report is to formulate some useful and
interesting images of the long-term future of space, and to encourage
and facilitate the use of such images and scenarios by NASA in its
studies, planning, and public information programs. We realize that
NASA already makes use of scenarios in its planning functions, but the
,deliberate formulation 'of long-term scenarios and "images of the future"
has usually been left to outside freelance writers. We believe it is
quite useful, perhaps important, for NASA to intervene in this process
and also to facilitate it. Some of the current relatively low interest
in NASA programs undoubtedly is due to the public's failure to understand
how exciting space development can be in the medium term (1985-2000) as
well as in the centuries beyond this one.

Of course, the extraordinarily extensive science fiction and other
popular literature have already introduced a fairly broad public in this
country and abroad to some concepts about space. This literature and
its media interpretation however tend to be relatively undisciplined,
imaginative (in both a good and bad sense) and, with a few important and
spectacular exceptions, relatively unrelated to serious socio-political
issues. We hope that this report will help to fill this last gap,
particularly in relating current issues to potential NASA programs. The
historical record shows that carefully developed medium- and long-term
images of the future have very often helped to place current priorities,
problems, issues, or controversies into a more realistic and clearer
context, and have provided useful perspectives for examining them.

Long-term scenarios about space development, and, even more important,
shared images of the future of space, can contribute to a sense
of community, of institutional meaning and purpose, of high morale, and
even--to use somewhat extravagant terms--of manifest destiny or of
"religious" mission. But it is important to achieve such goals in a way
which is neither aggravating nor obnoxious. Appearing to be fanatical
or seeking "pie in the sky" outcomes should also be avoided. To some
degree such images, if expressed inappropriately or at inappropriate
times and occasions, could create counterproductive impressions of this
kind. In reality, however, such impressions are relatively rare, and,
if they do occur, tend to be excused or dismissed rather readily. Since
it is generally understood that any professional group tends to give
itself a higher status and a more pervasive and important role than would
outsiders, this tendency is considered acceptable and even respectable.
Indeed, it is probably more appropriate for NASA than most other groups.
Such images can have a great impact on political issues--both internal
and external.

full declassified pdf: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b310563.pdf

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 05, 2015 11:57 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
Quote:
A clear synergy developed between the space program and the highly competitive world of image-based media. NASA projected itself to be an agency involved in science and technology, but it proved also to be skilled at image-making and public relations. Sensational stories generated by human-piloted flights meant publicity for NASA, larger audiences for the media networks, and positive projections of america’s power in the Cold War world. Many of the themes that had structured both popular science fiction and popular western tales echoed in the Media age’s presentation of the space race: danger, heroism, competition, suspense, and problems overcome through ingenuity. Yet the dramas that played out at Cape Canaveral and Houston, as exciting as fiction, had the added attraction of being “real.” The spectacularity of the space race helped sustain the older print-pictorial media, pioneered a compelling early version of “reality TV,” and proved attractive to filmmakers and space center visitors. and this fast-changing and competitive media environment, in turn, boosted the visual spectacularity of the Space Age.
Remembering the Space Age (ed: Steven J. Dick), p. 172
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of External Relations, History Division, 2008
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/sp ... ce_Age.pdf

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:35 am
Posts: 179
2001: A Space Odyssey was designed to be realistic in regard to NASA specs but for me that does not imply the military industrial complex paid Kubrick to make the film in the 1st place or paid him along the way to steer the film in a particular thematic direction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:49 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
Quote:
The film Interstellar should be shown in school science lessons, a scientific journal has urged.

....

The director of Interstellar, Christopher Nolan, told BBC News that Dr Jackson's comments and the two journal publications were "very important" to him.

Mr Nolan worked with Kip Thorne, a professor of theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) who was also one of the film's executive producers. Prof Thorne's vision was to produce a sci-fi film with real science woven into the fabric of the story.

"Films such as Interstellar or Contact or 2001: A Space Odyssey are inspirations for young people. A number of people I trained as a physicist with got involved with science because of movies like these. So if you are going to have a film that really does attract young people to science it had best be scientifically accurate," he said.

....

"Right from the beginning we all really believed it's time to inspire another generation to really look outwards and to look to the stars again.

"We hoped that by dramatising science and making it something that could be entertaining for kids we might inspire some of the astronauts of tomorrow - that would be the ultimate goal of the project," he said.

In general, Hollywood does seem to be getting better at portraying science in its blockbuster films. This may partly be due to an initiative by the US National Academy of Sciences called the Science and Entertainment Exchange. This puts scientists in contact with film-makers and TV producers in order to get more accurate science on the big and small screens.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33173197

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:24 pm
Posts: 28
First, an experiment:

Jasun wrote:
The film The Proximity Effect should be shown in school music lessons, a musical journal has urged.

....

The director of The Proximity Effect, Christopher Nolan, told BBC News that Dr Jackson's comments and the two journal publications were "very important" to him.

Mr Nolan worked with Kip Thorne, a professor of Music Theory at the California Institute of Musicology (CaltMuse) who was also one of the film's executive producers. Prof Thorne's vision was to produce a film with real music theory woven into the fabric of the story.

"Films such as The Proximity Effect or Whiplash or A440: A Tuning Odyssey are inspirations for young people. A number of people I trained as a violinist with got involved with music because of movies like these. So if you are going to have a film that really does attract young people to music it had best be musically accurate," he said.

....

"Right from the beginning we all really believed it's time to inspire another generation to really look outwards and to look to their instruments again.

"We hoped that by dramatising music and making it something that could be entertaining for kids we might inspire some of the conductors of tomorrow - that would be the ultimate goal of the project," he said.

In general, Hollywood does seem to be getting better at portraying music in its blockbuster films. This may partly be due to an initiative by the US National Academy of Arts called the Music and Entertainment Exchange. This puts musicians in contact with film-makers and TV producers in order to get more accurate music on the big and small screens.


Second:
gregtramel wrote:
2001: A Space Odyssey was designed to be realistic in regard to NASA specs but for me that does not imply the military industrial complex paid Kubrick to make the film in the 1st place or paid him along the way to steer the film in a particular thematic direction.


I agree with this.

Lastly, the most interesting portion of that (unaltered) article, to me, was this:

Quote:
Designers drew on scientific equations when creating their computer-generated effects. Particular attention went into the representation of the super massive black hole in the film and a wormhole that connects our Solar System to another in a different galaxy.

The visual effects company Double Negative developed a new suite of software that enabled them to calculate the way light rays travel across the warped space around the black hole.

The software was developed to produce extremely high resolution images suitable for a Hollywood film. The resulting pictures revealed delicate filigree patterns never observed before.

These raised new questions that were of sufficient scientific interest that they prompted a publication in the Institute of Physics journal Classical and Quantum Gravity.

The wormhole produced in the film is unlike any other seen in Hollywood films. Typically, they are shown as a giant cosmic drain with material falling into them. But by turning to physics the scientists determined that it would look like a crystal ball hanging in space. Inside was a distorted image from the galaxy on the other side.


These new discoveries prompted Prof Thorne and the visual effects team at Double Negative to publish two scientific papers.

"What was really exciting was that we were able to show the reality of the Universe was stranger than anything we could imagine," said Paul Franklin, the film's visual effects supervisor.

"You can tell an exciting story in all sorts of different ways. But by incorporating the reality of how extraordinary the Universe can be in Interstellar we ended up with a more exciting film than if we made it all up."


Interesting not only because this is how I would imagine it, based on certain experiences and perceptions, but also due to the final imagery in 2001...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
ThEos wrote:
First, an experiment:

Jasun wrote:
The film The Proximity Effect should be shown in school music lessons, a musical journal has urged.

....

The director of The Proximity Effect, Christopher Nolan, told BBC News that Dr Jackson's comments and the two journal publications were "very important" to him.

Mr Nolan worked with Kip Thorne, a professor of Music Theory at the California Institute of Musicology (CaltMuse) who was also one of the film's executive producers. Prof Thorne's vision was to produce a film with real music theory woven into the fabric of the story.

"Films such as The Proximity Effect or Whiplash or A440: A Tuning Odyssey are inspirations for young people. A number of people I trained as a violinist with got involved with music because of movies like these. So if you are going to have a film that really does attract young people to music it had best be musically accurate," he said.

....

"Right from the beginning we all really believed it's time to inspire another generation to really look outwards and to look to their instruments again.

"We hoped that by dramatising music and making it something that could be entertaining for kids we might inspire some of the conductors of tomorrow - that would be the ultimate goal of the project," he said.

In general, Hollywood does seem to be getting better at portraying music in its blockbuster films. This may partly be due to an initiative by the US National Academy of Arts called the Music and Entertainment Exchange. This puts musicians in contact with film-makers and TV producers in order to get more accurate music on the big and small screens.


Second:
gregtramel wrote:
2001: A Space Odyssey was designed to be realistic in regard to NASA specs but for me that does not imply the military industrial complex paid Kubrick to make the film in the 1st place or paid him along the way to steer the film in a particular thematic direction.


I agree with this.

Honestly, I don't understand this sort of reasoning and to me it smacks of sophistry.

I am not especially interested in whether Kubrick knew of NASA space-promotion plan or not (he was a smart guy, so I would guess he did), only that there's documented evidence that there was such a program, and more than circumstantial evidence that 2001 was a, if not the, major example of its implementation.

If someone wants to argue that this doesn't make the film "bad" or in any way affect it's artistic merit, they can; I'm not so interested in such an argument as it's too subjective, tho to me it seems pretty strange to suggest that something can be propaganda and art, or rather, that a work of art is not lessened by any propagandist aspects it may possess.

But as I say, this isn't my primary interest here; only that 2001 was part of a large, semi-covert push towards propagating the necessity and desirability of space colonization, and how this ties into a still larger program as laid out in Prisoner of Infinity (especially part 2, which admittedly isn't online).

The argument you made on the other thread was also in response to 2001 so I'll answer it here.

ThEos wrote:
I've also noticed that you can build uncanny cases to support various propositions, even ones pulled from nowhere, and since there are only 9 "root" numbers and a threshold, and everything emanates from them, the chances of running across those numbers and being able to cross-reference them to "unrelated" subjects or events is very, incredibly high, meaning you will almost always be able to do this, with anything, you just have to have the motivation to do so. For instance, I can probably link all the worlds woes back to dandelions, or peanuts, or alligators, or To The Devil A Daughter, or Little Wing, just by breaking down the names and occupations of people involved and digging into the etymology of the surrounding language, lyrics, script, uses, etc. It's a small world, after all. These kinds of thing are interesting, but not because I can then believe them and try to convince others, but because I can learn a lot about the nature of things in the process. I do think overt and covert symbolism is consciously employed by creatives, but that is precisely what art is. As you say about Mr. Moore, "I'd have to have known the guy personally to have a real feeling about what he did." I don't fully agree with that, as feelings are real regardless, but I do agree with what I think you're getting at. I would have more depth of feeling if I knew the man (either of them). That does not mean my feeling would necessarily be more accurate, however, as with audio, the proximity effect might amplify the lower (sub) frequencies involved, and cause a distorted or muddled view of other events that involve similar harmonic content. Interestingly, the only kind of polar pattern that does not have this "feature" is the omni-directional pick-up pattern.


Saying it's possible to show that the world's woes come down to dandelions or peanuts or To the Devil or Daughter is fun, and not without merit, and something that Page White is somewhat demonstrating over at his Ewe thread.

It also seems a bit asinine when we're talking about hard facts, as in the present context. I'm not a synchromystic and i'm not approaching 2001 in that spirit or with that methodology. Unfortunately, the synchromystical mindset seems to be taking over peoples rational faculties, with the result that the levels are forever being blurred. You don't try to eat soup with a fork do you? So why try and argue that a fork is the same as a spoon just because, you know, "there is no spoon"?

My point being, to counter specific evidence with general, abstract (disembodied!) arguments like the above is not really debating.

It's reframing.

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:24 pm
Posts: 28
Jasun wrote:
Honestly, I don't understand this sort of reasoning and to me it smacks of sophistry.


While I think the apparent fallacious nature of the argument, if there were any, might be better chalked up to a misunderstanding of intention, or a misjudging of the distribution of focus, my point above is in the context that a push for scientific literacy is no different than a push for musical literacy, generally speaking. Deeper, the misuse of scientific discoveries is not inherent to science any more than the misuse of firearms is inherent in minerals. A push on the part of scientists to generate interest in scientific principles, even if backed by the state, does not seem in and of itself nefarious (scientists first had to seek state backing), and it seems that the focus here is on pointing out the negative ways in which a specific piece of art may be used, but I could be misreading this. Further, it's not even necessary for the artist to be conscious of this use in his creation of the art for it to be branded propaganda. I do not think that art is at all diminished by those who find ways to use it in propaganda, especially if the artist is not even aware of such uses. Even if they are, this simply adds another dimension to any artwork, and thus it is still further enriched by complexity, particularly if there is any merit to the art at all, which, as you mentioned, is largely subjective, at least up to a certain point. Deception is still problematic, and ones personal connection to an artwork may be diminished, but all art involves some form of deception or manipulation.

Most controversially here, perhaps, I'm questioning if the so-called state propaganda is indeed ultimately negative at all. If so, then how, exactly, and if not, then what? Could be because I have a somewhat different reading of the film...

Jasun wrote:
Saying it's possible to show that the world's woes come down to dandelions or peanuts or To the Devil or Daughter is fun, and not without merit, and something that Page White is somewhat demonstrating over at his Ewe thread.

It also seems a bit asinine when we're talking about hard facts, as in the present context.


Well, I'm not sure I said that (or anything that could be called asinine, not taking personal offense, I just don't see any related statement in my quote beyond "I've noticed this..." and "I do think overt and covert symbolism is consciously employed by creatives, but that is precisely what art is...") or even what "that" is, so I'm not sure what you're responding to here.

Partially to blame for any misunderstandings is my assumption that "synchromystic" analysis is being taken somewhat seriously in the discussion, which it apparently is not (though it is entertained).

I'm also not sure how "hard" all of the facts really are. Besides, any facts I've seen are presented with their own framing, and I think I'm just trying to look at that framing, as well as at the facts, hence the reframing experiment in the above-quoted example.

Jasun wrote:
Unfortunately, the synchromystical mindset seems to be taking over peoples rational faculties, with the result that the levels are forever being blurred.


I agree with this.

Jasun wrote:
You don't try to eat soup with a fork do you? So why try and argue that a fork is the same as a spoon just because, you know, "there is no spoon"?

My point being, to counter specific evidence with general, abstract (disembodied!) arguments like the above is not really debating.

It's reframing.


I'm not sure I was debating, just adding my thoughts based on what I perceived. I'm still not aware of any "specific" damning evidence that 2001 was, or is, state propaganda, any more than anything else can, or will be, employed to such ends when needed. I think I may be missing a nuanced stance here, being that you're trying to uncover the various ways in which 2001 is state propaganda, while admitting that you do not necessarily think the creators of the film had to be totally aware of this. What the point of all this is, then, I admit I am not sure of.

My interest in Kubrick, what I would say is his "genius" if you'll forgive me, is his use of space. Not just the space of the vacuum in 2001, or hyperspace, though that was original at the time, but space in pacing, and in framing. It allows for the viewer to fill in the blanks, without actually being blank, as great care was taken in creating and pacing those spaces. In other words, it provides enough detail for our minds to generate any number of harmonically sound lines (counterpoint). The viewer is neither bludgeoned, nor starved. Capturing that kind of a balance is an art in itself, and rare. I do not think this only applies to visuals. I think it applies as well to the pacing and framing of his characters, at least in the films I've seen. Enough is left to the imagination that the films remain compelling for many, and enough is spelled out in symbols and dialogue that the characters themselves are not empty, but relatable.

For instance, one possible reading of the film is the one you lay out on the first page, that it is a justification of slaughter, etc. One could say the Monolith was extraterrestrial technology, rather than a phantom, and you could potentially be justified in thinking that. This may even be the case, but it's not what I got out of the end of the film at all. You mentioned this:

Jasun wrote:
How exactly the apparent malfunctioning of AI and the last man’s meeting and merging with galactic intelligence (passing through the star gate) are connected, even mutually dependent, isn’t clear, to me at least (maybe I am just dense). Since Kubrick and Clarke’s vision remains mysterious and obscure, it’s easy for the gullible to assume that the film’s creators knew something we don’t, that their imagination was so far beyond ours that we are still trying to decode their masterful message. Possibly, but isn’t it also possible that this was deliberate, that neither Kubrick nor Clarke really understood their story either, because they hadn’t worked it out that well?


I saw the malfunctioning of the AI as a condemnation of AI, and technology in general. The AI, or false ego, had to go first, this was necessary to reach hyperspace (or to let go). I saw the journey through hyperspace as a journey inward, and the old man as the Ego, surrounded by opulence and routine, but dying nonetheless. This is where the source of the monolith was revealed as well, not some alien technology, but the "mind". If we're already in the mind, and the monolith reappears, what else could it be, and where else could we be in that room but the mind? The "rebirth" at the end was just that, not an invitation to conquest, but a reframing of human history, and potential. A reclamation of innocence. After all, it didn't manifest over a new planet, but our own earth, bathed in the feminine light of the moon. It didn't look out to the stars, but at the earth, and then, directly into the eyes of the viewer... That means it came "back" to earth from Jupiter, and from hyperspace. The throwing of the bone in the beginning was not supposed to be taken as triumphant, but as folly, of the tendency of man to disregard and dissociate from his own acts of violence, and the history between then and the future scene with the spaceship was confirmation of that tendency. This is the guy who made Full Metal Jacket... Technology was portrayed as cold and lifeless throughout the film, as a warning. At least this is what I got from it. I also got this from the presence of the pod in the room at the end. The pod was an extension of the room, which was itself an extension of the ego, which was itself an extension of the Self. The Monolith is the Self, which is why it looks like a movie screen. I don't know about the other interpretations that cite the same thing.

I completely disagree with Pauline Kael's interpretation that "2001 celebrates the invention of tools of death, as an evolutionary route to a higher order of non-human life" for the reasons I described above. I think the technological scenes are supposed to be seen as banal and cold. I think the room was populated by a dying old man surrounded by traditional trappings of opulence as an indictment of the methods used to get there. There was nothing about going through hyperspace and arriving at that sort of emptiness that was appealing, but that was the message. You will still die old and scared, surrounded by these trappings, and they cannot help you. It's not that it advocated or supported the way we got to where we are, but that it tried to confront the way we got to where we are now, and ultimately laid the blame right where it belongs, at our own feet. I also don't think the baby is "non-human" at all. I think it's just a representation of what many of us often wish we could do, relive our lives with the awareness we now have. A second chance, not a resurrection. I think 2001 was a fractal expression of the human dream/nightmare, and it ended on an ambivalent note, because we were in a very tumultuous time in history.

If it was state propaganda it miserably failed in communicating that message to me.

That said, I never read the book, so I don't know what Clarke was trying to transmit, but I do know that Kubrick has a way of rejecting a books ultimate message and turning his film adaptation into it's own vehicle, using only the framework of the source material. Ask Stephen King.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:24 pm
Posts: 28
So here's my answer to your 5 questions.

1) Does 2001 celebrate space travel and the technology necessary to achieve it?

No, it in fact makes such technology, and the means by which it was achieved, horrifying, intentionally, in tone and in function. It also renders space travel moot, as it culminates in an inward journey that places the traveler right back in front of the earth, looking at itself.

2) Does it present the idea of a godlike extraterrestrial intelligence intervening in human affairs?

No, the Monolith is the Self, and wherever we go, there we are. We are projecting that it is "out there" because we are so thoroughly dissociated from ourselves, and lost.

3) Does it map the progression, via this intervention, of human consciousness, from apes to the first tool-wielding hominids learning to kill their fellows, to space colonization, to becoming an extraterrestrial, godlike intelligence?

No, as described above. It maps human folly, and our tendency to dissociate from ourselves, and the means with which we have "achieved" our current state. First, the ape throws the bone away, out into the distance, and simply up. HAL is the ultimate dissociation, a consciousness born of man, and HAL must be destroyed for the story to come to fruition, as the story is that of a human, nothing more, and nothing less. HAL would have killed the last remaining human, as "he" murdered the rest, and there would have been no story, for there would have been no Monolith. "Actualization" of AI would bring about the things you accuse the movie of supporting.

4) Did 2001 receive massive financial support from corporate Hollywood and an unusual degree of artistic freedom for Kubrick plus an unknown level of government cooperation (NASA)?

I have no idea.

5) Do any or all of these ideas coincide with a memeplex that has only become fully apparent in the decades since 2001, but which was already well underway in the 1960s, and which is intimately tied to the counterculture who embraced the film?

That needs to be a little more specified to me. It's possible, but many things coincide with memeplexes that have nothing to do with their original intent, so it does not seem relevant. Look at My Little Pony.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Hope, BC
ThEos wrote:
my point above is in the context that a push for scientific literacy is no different than a push for musical literacy, generally speaking.

As I understood it, Nolan's main point was inspiring new generations to look to the stars, and the scientific literacy was an integral part of that, to motivate budding new scientists to want to put their energy into making space travel possible.

Promoting space travel technology would seem, to me, to have much larger implications for boosting capitalism than promoting musical instruments.

ThEos wrote:
I do not think that art is at all diminished by those who find ways to use it in propaganda, especially if the artist is not even aware of such uses.

Here we can agree to disagree.

ThEos wrote:
Partially to blame for any misunderstandings is my assumption that "synchromystic" analysis is being taken somewhat seriously in the discussion, which it apparently is not (though it is entertained).

It's been a while since this thread was active, and I don't suppose there's an exact line between analyzing the film's content for encoded meanings and looking at the documented evidence for NASA's 'scenario planning' and promotion of space travel through popular media, as I've been looking into more recently.

I would view your later reading of 2001 as an s/m reading of the film and one that, while I don't agree with it, i.e., I didn't get that feeling from the film the last time I saw it (the film felt imbued with American religiosity around the idea of progress, triumph of the will to power, etc, right down to the Wagner soundtrack), that doesn't mean it's not valid.

To really know how valid, or rather, how relevant to the purpose of this thread, would require a survey of viewers (perhaps esp. those filmmakers who voted it greatest film of all time) to discover what the most common reading of the film is.

The idea that a film can be made as propaganda and still somehow convey something of value to an individual viewer is a mystical idea but not one I disagree with at base, I just don't know how relevant it is, since a mystic, or a schizophrenic, may find meaningful signals from the universe (their unconscious) in a pool of vomit. Another useful survey would be to find out how many of the people who embrace 2001 and think it's great art believe in (i.e., are personally invested in) the idea of space travel, the use of psychedelic substances, or the notion of ET intelligence/intervention (or even spiritual transcendence).

ThEos wrote:
I'm also not sure how "hard" all of the facts really are.

Documented facts, then.

ThEos wrote:
. I think I may be missing a nuanced stance here, being that you're trying to uncover the various ways in which 2001 is state propaganda, while admitting that you do not necessarily think the creators of the film had to be totally aware of this. What the point of all this is, then, I admit I am not sure of.

Mapping larger narratives that may be so embedded into the culture and our psyches that we don't even notice they are there. Also, it makes culture more interesting once it can be seen as part of a huge, multi-generational parapolitical propaganda machine, and allows one, me, to create some healthy distance between the narratives and my own psyche.
; more importantly still, to identify those internal values that have been 'incepted' from without and aren't internally generated.

ThEos wrote:
I think the technological scenes are supposed to be seen as banal and cold.

Yes but also absorbing, spellbinding, and glorious(-ly ironic). Kubrick has it both ways.

ThEos wrote:
If it was state propaganda it miserably failed in communicating that message to me.

I think this is a somewhat superficial notion of how propaganda works in the hands of a "genius." There can be many levels, for example, the most superficial level would be the reading of the film which you reject but which, I would wager, a large portion of viewers who bother to follow the film's story at all swallow whole. For them, the notion that space travel fired by man's innate drive to conquer leads to transcendence would seed the idea that somehow, our destiny as human beings lies in the stars and that this is something to hope for, a scientistc equivalent to the hope for Heaven. For less literal minded viewers, it's a parable about transcending spacetime and entering into hyperdimensional consciousness, reunion with infinite space God (reimmersion into the mother's psyche?), and might confirm a belief that the "shamanic" use of psychotropic drugs, say, is the means to rediscover "the self." And so on.

The one thing that seems fundamental to the film is the idea of linear progression from a primitive state to demigod status, by whatever means, in other words, progress. As I pointed out elsewhere, just because Kubrick is showing the emptiness and even pathology of technology doesn't mean he isn't celebrating it (as he celebrated the psychopath in Clockwork Orange), or that he isn't propagating the notion that, through the will to power, dissociated as it may be, true transcendence will occur. (Which for all I know it will, some day, though it sure didn't work out for me.)

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 12:21 pm
Posts: 177
ThEos wrote:
Quote:
I've also noticed that you can build uncanny cases to support various propositions, even ones pulled from nowhere, and since there are only 9 "root" numbers and a threshold, and everything emanates from them, the chances of running across those numbers and being able to cross-reference them to "unrelated" subjects or events is very, incredibly high, meaning you will almost always be able to do this, with anything, you just have to have the motivation to do so. For instance, I can probably link all the worldsI woes back to dandelions, or peanuts, or alligators, or To The Devil A Daughter, or Little Wing, just by breaking down the names and occupations of people involved and digging into the etymology of the surrounding language, lyrics, script, uses, etc. It's a small world, after all. These kinds of thing are interesting, but not because I can then believe them and try to convince others, but because I can learn a lot about the nature of things in the process. I do think overt and covert symbolism is consciously employed by creatives, but that is precisely what art is. As you say about Mr. Moore, "I'd have to have known the guy personally to have a real feeling about what he did." I don't fully agree with that, as feelings are real regardless, but I do agree with what I think you're getting at. I would have more depth of feeling if I knew the man (either of them). That does not mean my feeling would necessarily be more accurate, however, as with audio, the proximity effect might amplify the lower (sub) frequencies involved, and cause a distorted or muddled view of other events that involve similar harmonic content. Interestingly, the only kind of polar pattern that does not have this "feature" is the omni-directional pick-up pattern.


Jasun wrote:
Saying it's possible to show that the world's woes come down to dandelions or peanuts or To the Devil or Daughter is fun, and not without merit, and something that Page White is somewhat demonstrating over at his Ewe thread.


Everyone's heard of a dandelion, a peanut, an alligator, etc. Here in the states, at least according to my personal , real-world, in-the-flesh investigations, not many of the people who I have asked have even heard of a yew tree ... and I live in the Northwest where yew trees thrive ... And I have asked -- face to face -- mostly people (more than a few dozen) who are of some sort of European ancestry, from a land where the yew tree, just a few short thousand years ago, was openly such a central figure in the process of the ever-deepening of the soul of European men, women, and children ... when culture was intact ... not the pseudo-culture of today where a tree has just become a tree ... "they're all the same to me" type of attitude. Everyone has heard of an oak, , a maple, a dogwood, a douglas fir, a dandelion, a crocodile, etc. But very few have even heard of yew ? ! WTF. That's what I'm looking at as much as anything else ... The occulted history of yew. The other side of the mirror, where yew were never lost from the memory of anyone from any ancestry where the yew was a central axial point. I'm focussing on the British Isles, mostly, because that was where Kubrick was doing his thing for a good chunk of his life, but I could very well have chosen to focus on Akira Kurosaw and on the very old yews outside of very old Shinto shrines of Japan just as much as I am looking at Kubrick and the ancient yews standing outside the church doors throughout England , Ireland, and Scotland. But ... alas .. This is The Kubrickon forum.

This is what I am bringing attention to , just a little bit, and what Theos is saying in the quote above doesn't quite compare to what is being done in the "Ewe thread", if he was subtly , consciously or unconsciously , trying to make comparisons between what I am doing on this forum and what other synchromystically inclined people (like himself?) always go on about ... finding codes in things without really bringing it on home, as far as I am concerned. The whole "sync" game is of no use -- at least not to me -- if one isn't playing it in a way that isn't bringing it home into the actual roots of an actual tree ... shining some golden light into the bole at the ground level. I'd love to hear other people bring it on home to their own damned medicine tree and/or trees, yew or not.

The racial issues of "Consensus Time" get cleared up right quick once we each get to the actual roots that we can all actually touch with each our own hands, if we each so desire to. First and foremost, for me, the "black" and "white" trip was a big one to go -- to say goodbye to -- and I've learned not to get into debates (won't do it) with those who still insist on using terms like "black" and "white" to describe the appearance of self or fellow human creatures. If I do get into conversations about race with people , I throw those cards down on the table first, and if they don't see how doing such a thing is like clear-cutting all the yews from the internal landscape, then I don't engage. It's self-harming, so say I, to think of such things as a "white race" and/or "black race", etc. , as quite a few in the APC relish in doing currently, along with others who are kind of stuck in a kind of cultural marxist (or something akin to that) way of presenting TRUTH and "the real".

So ... why is the yew not a commonly known tree (at least not in the states where I live) , just as a dandelion is commonly known flower, as a peanut is commonly known nut, and an alligator a commonly known reptile ? I'm still looking into it.

Maybe the Civil War was more to do with the very beginning stages of the remembering of yew (in the hearts of people of European ancestry) than it was to do with slavery. Slavery is a by-product of the forgetting of yew. Yew have always been at the root of all good "organic" technology and as it started to come back into the mind-field of the displaced Europeans who did not choose to live in "America", but were merely born into it ... a storm began to brew, and the fight to correct the indignities of allowing slavery-as-an-institutionalized-practice was on. There is indeed a force -- a mind-virus -- that has always been against the yews ... against the yew-human bond ... and it is ugliest when it enters the mind of people who are of the ancestry -- the lands -- where the yews do thrive.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!