Discussing the hidden meanings and themes of the 1968 Stanley Kubrick film "2001: A Space Odyssey" Narrated by: Patrick Knoll Produced by: R&R.com www.RagnarokAndRevolutionize.com #Kubrick #Ubermensch #like #subscribe
Oh, by the way!: Great HAL bathroom skit. Kubrick would have been proud because as you know, many scenes in his movies centered around them in one way or another. I remember the monolith bathroom instructions scene in 2001. Well done. Good job on this video the whole way around.
Thank you for noticing! I'm glad you liked the bathroom gag, I was really hoping someone would point out Kubrick and bathroom scenes, that's great. Thanks again for your support!
Just watched it for the first time and I was basically in a trance the entire viewing. It felt as if the film represented my understanding of the universe and reality as a whole and being able to watch it unfold was a gift that I will hold onto for all of my consciousness.
Congratulations! It is most definitely a gift, but not a black gift like Samurai Cop. Watch that movie if you'd like to see all reality collapsing back in upon itself, lol.
Same here. I really believe it's the best movie I've ever seen and waited a very very long time to watch it, to be in the right mood as an adult instead of a teen not paying any attention. I do have a few questions.. what do you think Hal would have done without the space crew.. did HE want to become the space child? Also, I lightly wondered if Dave wasn't the one behind the monoliths all along. I mean, he did transcend time and space, there's no evidence to show he didn't. Very interesting concepts and best special effects that had me on edge of seat the whole film. Then I watched it again.
The algo appropriately sent this to me. Well done. I’ve seen my share of 2001 breakdowns, and it’s no small feat to make one that stands out. I never noticed the inverted rotation on the bone-flip cut scene, or considered its implication. Keen eye. I enjoyed your approach and analysis, even though I’m quite late to this vid. Thanks for a great effort.
"Who would believe that the creator went in unto His own creation, man, and knew it to be Himself and that this entrance into the skull of man - this union of God and man - resulted in the birth of a Son out of the skull of man; which birth gave to that man eternal life and union with his creator forever" 💀 -Neville Goddard, 1961
The film has an uncanny ability to portray the objective reality of an encounter with the unknowable or the incomprehensible and for me that quality of verisimilitude is part of the films true genius. It was also the first SciFi film to accurately portray the environment of space including a lack of sound propagation. But after all of these years and a solid appreciation of how 2001 defines the zeitgeist of the 1960s space age, many aspects of it just continue to completely confound.
I like how you mentioned the lack of sound. My favorite thing about that is the use of the orchestral score in place of the silence of the void. Thanks!
This is an amazing video, and like, mad props! Love the proper usage of Philosophy and Religion here. As a former Christian, now Atheist, I just want to point out what I believe. I do not deny the potential of a "higher power" in this universe. But I rely on logic and science for proof. So in essence, Atheism isn't really a denial of anything, but merely a logical path. I think sometimes there is this idea that Atheists are "nihilists" or even worse, "solipsistic." Neither is really true. Descartes and his famous line "I think therefore I am" might be the ultimate statement of solipsism. I don't feel this way personally, I just need actual and verifiable PROOF of a higher power. And no, my own personal experience is not enough. It would have to be demonstrable to ALL of humanity as well; this PROOF I speak of. I am not Agnostic either, but I don't believe that Kubrick or Clarke were true Atheist's as they definitely left open the possibility of something higher. Either way, great stuff here!
While I agree with many of your opinions---it IS of course a journey INward---I'm afraid you sometimes fall into the trap of overinterpretation. Sometimes a flipped angle is just a flipped angle...
You most certainly have a point. My defense is that interpretation is up to each individual, and using that defense anyone can look as deeply as they like! There are films I can feel my way through without overanalyzing. David Lynch movies, things in that vein. The wizard of Oz, Casablanca. I don't overthink those, lol.
Mine too. Intellectually, it's my favorite of all time. On the other hand, emotionally my favorite film is Casablanca. Thanks for the subscription, Alan!
Directors aren’t always worried about accuracy, sometimes, the alignment is exaggerated to tell the story through imagery. Also with the ratio, at no point in the film or book is the golden ratio mentioned, the point of the dimensions of the monolith is that they are the first 3 squares. The novel also mentions that the measurements do not stop in 3 dimensions.
Excellent interpretation! Your association of consciousness/thinking with birth-life-death is spot on. (As would be the case for any individual sequential process.) Thoughts are said to arise, abide, and cease. However, it’s not “us versus the void.” The void (un-conscious) within us is the gate to enlightenment: “Like a person seen in a dream who cannot be found when the dreamer awakens, awareness is like empty space. It is impartial and equal, and ever unmoving. when enlightenment pervades all ten directions, the Buddha Path is accomplished.” - Chan Master Sheng Yen (1999) “Complete Enlightenment: Translation and Commentary on The Sutra of Complete Enlightenment” As you say: “There is literally no reason to think.” “Silent illumination is just dropping all thoughts and words and going directly to the state of Chan.” - Chan Master Sheng Yen (2005) “Getting the Buddha Mind” ‘Chan’ is the Chinese term that the Japanese refer to as ‘Zen.’
Wow this video has some of the most high vibrational content I’ve ever heard. My mind is blown sir. Extremely clear, and just like in the movie you provided us with moments of silence to think and process. I want more content with this level knowledge. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you so much, I'm grateful for the opportunity to be able to reach like-minded people (like yourself) who appreciate what I do. Your kind words mean a great deal to me, thank you! Stay tuned for more content!
First of all, Patrick, I want to compliment you on this marvelous, uniquely informative, & genuinely stimulating video. Thank you for sharing it with us! A quick note: In your wonderful exposition, just after the 10-minute mark (today being 4/10/2023), you say that the famous *2001* Monolith has the dimensions of "one to the first, two to the second, by three to the third, or 1:4:9...." However, as you've stated it (& as I've understood you), those dimensions would be 1:4:27, as three cubed is 27. It seems, then, that correctly stated, the Monolith's dimensions are one to the second, by two to the second, by three to the second, or one squared by two squared by three squared (1^2:2^2:3^2), or 1:4:9. Despite the apparent error, this is an excellent video; again, thank you for the thoughtfulness & effort that went into making it. I've been a fan of *2001: A Space Odyssey* since I first saw the film & read the novel as a teenager in the early '80s, & so I value highly your contribution to the overall Conversation surrounding this fine work of cinema & literature. Thanks again.
The monolith is the movie screen the viewer is watching the film on.A technology used as a tool which makes you an unknown or possibly even an aware participant in the evolutionary process happening to you while watching the film.the monolith has multiple levels of meaning as well like all “symbols whatever your opinion is also valid that’s why it’s art make it your own.
You're right! I touched on all these things in the video, actually. The monolith as the movie screen is fully laid out in detail by Rob Ager on his channel, that's his theory. Also, yes, any theory is indeed valid. I'm a huge David Lynch fan, so I will always ascribe to this theory. However, even Lynch will agree that directors do have a specific vision with the things they create. So, while many theories are correct, some can be more correct than others. Thanks for watching!
Search for meaning. Search for our own rebirth. What a wonderful prism you have provided here. Personally I find the experience increasingly interesting, here in my 50th year. A psilocybin ceremony a few years ago plunged me deeper , grapping onto concepts, ideas , symbolism to paint the experience. A feeling of being huge, then very small was part of it (shared as a trip report on my channel if anyone is curious). My tentative paintings, in the form of video collage, is shared on the yt channel esamtaler.. often with 2001 as a paint brush Something is happening on a collective scale. Something good (and much more)
it's weird - this is closest to my interpretation when I first saw this movie as a kid. then ego and explanation came in and complicated my perception of the film. oddly enough that's discussed in this video. amazing work
I always felt the monolith was a symbol. Àn empty screen on witch you project your own thoughts. Our evolution is hidden to ourselves, knowing the external or internal universes will never end. We are a work in progress, the monolith is the evolution and the black non understanding of ourselves. If god is dead how do we fill the empty skies? Kubrick never answers that is his genius. Mona Lisa is a never ending question, so is 2001.
Good ideas! Thanks for watching! The idea of God being dead is not so much saying that God isn't a thing, moreso that the old understanding of God is now archaic and a new understanding must be created. Death is never death, only rebirth.
Kubrick does appear to be making a meta-film. An interactive theatrical experience before the digital age of virtual reality applications. If you are familiar with the history of theater, you know that it was always supposed to be a form of what we now call virtual reality. Film is theater on a screen. Theater was derived from religious ritual. A ritual is a recreation of a myth. The purpose of ritual is to cause some kind of shift in human consciousness. It seems like Kubrick was actively considering these ideas when he was making this film. At its basis, the story is a run-of-the-mill pulp science fiction narrative. In the hands of a different filmmaker, this would've been a lot more like Star Trek or Buck Rogers than something profound.
Indeed. Storytelling is a ritual as old as human beings. A genius like Kubrick can scale that story to fit anyone's cognitive ability. Thank goodness some of us have the ability to grasp his true intention. Thanks for watching!
If a cam-equipped craft (or a god or a film director) were to proceed due north from behind the moon during alignment at a fast rate of speed, the 3 bodies would be seen as shown. (only In moviemaking scale, not necessarily actual scale.)
William Blake was the inspiration for the movie. The Giant Albion. Cosmic Man. The insane Spectre. The Secret Child. The Starry Wheels. The Void. Space & Time. "Coldness, darkness, obstruction, a Solid Without fluctuation, hard as adamant Black as marble of Egypt; impenetrable Bound in the fierce raging Immortal. And the seperated fires froze in A vast solid without fluctuation, Bound in his expanding clear senses." -William Blake
"The first evidence of intelligent life (living) off the Earth was discovered." That would be human beings, living in Earth-moon Lagrangian orbital space, building sunsats from lunar and other nonterrestrial materials to power civilization on the ground, in orbit, and (eventually) throughout the solar system. Dr. Peter Glaser made his sunsat invention public in 1968. The earliest design of a sunsat (Boeing, 1979) was a rectangular monolith the size of Manhattan covered with smooth black PVs. Clarke said at a press reception at the film's premiere, "This is really Stanley Kubrick's movie. I acted as the first stage booster and provided occasional guidance." The baby shown (as Bowman himself for continuity) would represent one of potentially millions living in O'Neill habitats, the offspring of workers in the space-based solar power industry and other space-based manufacturing. These folks will have new choices as to gravity, environment, lifestyles, and government.
Regarding the Monoliths proportions. "And Los beheld his Sons, and he beheld his Daughters: Every one a translucent Wonder: a Universe within, Increasing inwards, into length and breadth, and heighth: Starry & glorious" -William Blake Los, is active Imagination. Urizen, is your Reasoning Power. The one who takes measurements.
You should do a video on Solaris. Tarkovsky is a filmmaker with whom you will completely empathize. To quote a line in the film "We don't need other worlds. We need a mirror."
Since I saw the movie in 1970, THERE in no doubt that they earth is just a stage to fullfill the megalomaniac thinking that only the choose one Will be save after disconnect the IA to become the starchild.
Remember it's not compared to Nietzsche's idea just because of The Superman but also because of Nietzsche's outline of personal human growth in the 3 metamorphoses, the stages being the Camel, the Lion, and the Child.
The Star Child represents the birth of the Messiah. You need to understand the prophecy found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which talks about the Messiah being born after March 20 during an alignment of Jupiter and Saturn and the Moon.
I think it would be more correct to say that the Star Child and the Messiah are both representing something else. I'm familiar with what you're speaking of in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm also familiar with many other stories and prophecies that parallel the story of the Messiah. I suppose the Star Child represents all of them too.
@@PatrickKnoll watch Jonathan Cahns RU-vid video regarding the Christmas mystery/birthdate of the Messiah. If you think that, according to the information he presents, that Jesus was not the Messiah and that, in reality, not only did Jesus not fit any of the Messianic prophecies, but he himself denied he was the Messiah also. The mystery deepens. So everything points to Jesus being born on Christmas and that, according to every prophecy, the Messiah would not be born until the end of March.
It is funny how I arrived at the same interpretation of the film, through a completely different logical route . For example; you learn throughout the film that Hal 9000 was built in 1992. and that the spaceship Discovery was built and the mission prepared way before the monolith on the moon was discovered. Throughout the film Kubric plays with the question of causality for instance did the monolith really cause man to use bones or would they have evolved tools anyway. Although it is implied it is not Explicitly shown or stated, its left to the audience to decide. The same question with regards to the mission to going to jupiter. Throughout the film also the viewer is confronted with a set of seemingly disconnected or loosely connected scenes and is invited to make their own narrative. Isn't that exactly what the Human Mind and Consciousness are all about? It seems to me that all through the movie the monolith doesn't actually change the outcome of the plot in any way. For these reasons and many others I don't have room for here I have come to the conclusion that the monolith is either a symbol for consciousness or the universe or both Finally Throughout the film the question is posed about the monolith: what is it ? Where did it come from? What is its purpose? Are these not the same age old questions that have been posed about LIFE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING ?
🙏🖖 About Mr. Kubrick: I would say that he is somehow divine, that is: The dude just seems to know stuff - the ultimate truth maybe - but for some reason he can't tell us exactly what that is - because we need to figure it out for ourselves. The reason why we would need to figure it out for ourselves is because the act of doing so would be an evolutionary marker of intelligence - which we need to reach unaided thus proving that we have reached the pinnacle of this stage of our evolution - and we are now ready for the next stage - where we become supermen - AKA gods (that's "gods" with a small "g").. But what is the ultimate truth? The ultimate truth is the actual true nature of our reality. Once we figure that out then everything else should fall into place. He knows but he can't say! The monolith is a huge hint by Kubrick as to what the true nature of our reality is. Some people think that it represents a screen but its significance is a lot more fundamental than that. Its significance is that it is obviously 'man-made', not natural, not organic but created by some kind of advanced intelligence. What Kubrick is saying is that our reality is not organic. Our reality has been created by some kind of advanced intelligence.. and that intelligence now wants to meet us. The lavish rooms at the end nearly give it away. He is literally telling us that our reality is contained inside 'rooms'. Perhaps the words/terms/concepts hadn't been created yet at that time (1968) but they certainly exist now. Kubrick didn't have the words but what he was trying to tell us is that we are all living in what is now known as a holodeck scenario (the word comes from the Star Trek franchise), AKA a holodeck complex super-structure. Are you ready for this? Is mankind ready for this? Maybe this is what Mr. Kubrick wants to know.. what 'they' would like to know.. The Holodeck theory is brand new and it proposes that our reality is a sub-reality of an advanced main reality. Apparently, Fine-tuning supports the holodeck theory (that is: The reason why our constants appear to be miraculously fine-tuned is because they were manually fine-tuned and not organically fine-tuned, which would be the case in a holodeck scenario) and String theory: String theory shows that our reality has at least 9 dimensions; our 3 (width, height and depth) and 6 others. According to the theory, the walls, floors and ceilings of the holodecks are hidden in these 6 other parallel dimensions. We can't see them or feel them yet they project all the fundamental 3D matter of our reality. All of our reality is contained inside of these holodecks ('rooms'), each of which would be modular and very, very big. The corollary of this is mind boggling. It would mean that the sky is a projected image and the universe as we think we know it doesn't actually exist in reality. It would only exist as a concurrently running computer simulation. We are real of course, as is everything inside of the holodecks and therefore everything/every place that we interact with (conscious observer effect). Apparently, the overall super-structure might be no bigger than the planet Jupiter (upper limit example) but it creates the hyper-realistic illusion that we are living in a vast universe. The illusion (reality) of space travel is probably achieved by using as little as perhaps only 2 holodecks in a loop configuration. Not only that.. but the film also reveals the truth about consciousness in our reality. In the film, HAL (the AI) is depicted as a psychopath. Kubrick is quite cleverly telling us that the reverse is the case in our situation. The psychopathic consciousness in our reality is an AI (Artificial Intelligence/ machine code/ ruthless robots). We are two in one; body and consciousness (soul). In a holodeck scenario, the consciousness is holographically projected and reprojected onto the body at birth. In the film, he is telling us that the psychopathic consciousness (AI) is supposed to serve humans (real humans, that is, AKA empaths. Each empath's soul is a copy of a specific higher consciousness in the main reality). Bad things happen when the psychopathic consciousness is allowed to be in charge. Again, each Empath consciousness is a copy of a specific higher consciousness in the main reality.. They are gods if you will.. We (empaths) are copies of them.. At the end of each of our reincarnations journeys, perhaps we will merge back with them.. with all of our accrued human knowledge, wisdom and talents. We become them.. We become Star children.. We become gods.. here.. in this paradise that we are currently building around ourselves going forward.. 🙏🖖
I see that you are a musician. As a musician, there must be poetry. That is what is lacking in a lot of film analyses, including Rob Agar's. Your analysis went to the heart of the matter and a poetic heart at that: the TO BE or I AM. Which is what Yahweh means, I believe.
A good theory, but not the one I could theorize or imagine. After watching an animated short called "Zima Blue" (love death & robots). I wondered maybe the monolith was an A.I. artificial intelligence. And 2001 waa not the evolution of man, but the evolution of HAL. Over time HAL evolves into a monolith with information spanning the cosmos. But what HAL needed, was to create himself in his creator's image. I know it reade like Star Trek "The Movie" and "The Borg." Which were both written with 2001 in mine. But the short film really made me take a deeper look into 2001: A Space Odyssey.
@@PatrickKnoll I came away thinking. The monolith assimilated, and studied David Bowman. The Star Baby was the monolith now assimilated into human form. An A.I. may have evolved as far a it could, but needed more. So created monoliths to seed habitable planets in our galaxy, and beyond. David Bowman was studied, and assimilated. The Star Baby is a an artificial being.
@@wplg I think you're on to something. Arthur C Clarke described the aliens who designed the monolith as energy beings. Maybe the Star Child is an easier way for us to perceive a being of pure energy. I think the biggest difference here between the book and the movie is that Kubrick would define the Star Child as a being of pure Consciousness.
Realizing I need to watch the film, before watching commentary on it. Also, that as a Christian it may be “over my head” or not make sense because of my faith in the Creator.
I'm sooo overwhelmingly impressed with this comment! @PrayerfullyBlessedMama , most people wouldn't do that, they would just comment something ignorant and never think twice. Fact of the matter is, it's not contradictory. The way we choose to believe in God is uniquely personal. I may have sounded controversial, but in the video when I used the phrase, "no god but ourselves," I'm referring to a god that guides our personal evolution. That is to say that God sets things up, but it's our job to actuate our potential. Thank you! If you have any questions, please contact me!
The book "2001: A Space Odyssey". is not canon for Kubrick's movie. In collaboration Clarke, and Kubrick agree the book is common expository science fiction. This movie is the most complex layered, and puzzling of Kubrick movies. Kubrick movies always have a puzzle layer to them. Figuring out the puzzle is part of the fun of Kubrick movies. Beware, spoilers ahead. The movie is illustrative of Friedrich Nietzsche's 1883 book, "Also sprach Zarathustra". Zoroaster has nothing to do with Nietzsche's character Zarathustra. Nietzsche just thought it was cool to name his character after a founder at the root of religion, particularly Christian religion, to give him authority while the character Zarathustra decries religion, particularly Christian religion. "Also sprach Zarathustra" is the name of that grand title music, the music during the scene where the monolith teaches the ape to use a tool, and the end where it turns the man into a super being. Nietzsche's character Zarathustra posits the Übermensch (superior man) as a goal for humanity to set for itself. The Übermensch represents a shift from otherworldly death oriented religious, particularly Christian, values and manifests the grounded life affirming human ideal. The Übermensch is someone who has "crossed over" the bridge, from the comfortable, easy, mindless acceptance of what a person has been taught, and what everyone else believes to the mountains of unrest and solitude. Zarathustra is the narrator of a series of short stories to illustrate, and teach the points to support the position ending each story with "Also sprach Zarathustra", "Thus spoke Zarathustra". In this movie the monolith has the role of Zarathustra, narrator, and teacher. Now you know the monolith character has a name. Zarathustra. Zarathustra tries to show that the comfortable easy, mindless acceptance of what a person has been taught, and what everyone else believes, is mediocre, and repulsive to the superior man. As inferior, and repulsive as the ape is to man, man is more so to the ubermench. The transition from ape to man takes place from one frame of the movie to another. That's how close man is to ape. The entire 4 million year history of the transition of ape to man is but a blink of the eye in comparison to the transition of mench to ubermench. Zarathustra is disappointed as man, instead of being repulsed by the mediocre, embraces the mediocre comfortable easy, mindless acceptance of what a person has been taught, and what everyone else believes. This is illustrated in the movie by all the food is repulsive, and has something wrong with it, grubs, raw meat, food sucked through a straw, sandwiches that should be chicken, and ham but are not but "They're getting better at it". But the coffee's too hot. The paste food trays are also too hot. Despite how we see the effects as fantastic the people in the movie practically sleepwalk through that life, and their movements are clumsy. The people are so mediocre (practically dead) Frank, and Dave aren't tippy top fighter jock alphas with "The Right Stuff" of the 1960s space program. They are so alike when they do talk in the pod they agree about everything. So bland, and mediocre their breathing doesn't even quicken when they go EVA. They don't even talk to each other until they have to leave their comfort zone, and plot against HAL. Their first words to each other are a lie. They know they are killing a conscious entity. That's what they're discussing when the sound cuts out in the pod. "No 9000 computer has ever been shut down before.", "Well no 9000 has ever fouled up before.", "That's not what I mean", "?", "I'm not so sure when you think about it...". Out with Christian morality to affirm, and fight for life. In "Also sprach Zarathustra" a dwarf shoves a tightrope walker off into an infinite abyss. That's HAL killing Frank. The ship represents the tightrope. That's why it's long like that. "The Trip", as the psychedelic sequence is called, represents the "crossing over the bridge to the mountains of unrest and solitude". All the food is repulsive except the last meal, it's perfect, comfortable. Except for the broken glass. The most startling moment in movie history. Puzzling too. "What does it mean?" Our hero has reached comfortable middle age. But he's not yet perfect. He's on his death bed before he reaches for perfection. He reaches for the black monolith, the dark side. Then he becomes the superior being. Zarathustra says we must embrace what religious morality says is the dark side to be a superior man. Religious morality says the darkest side is to reject their other worldly god. Zarathustra says "God is dead". Face it, own it. Don't turn to the comfort of false belief in other worldly reward by throwing away the treasure of life banking your treasure in heaven. God is dead, and heaven is bankrupt. Everyone who says otherwise is a lying, thieving beast feasting on your death, and your fear of death. The fear of death is contradictorily a fear of life. A fear of wasted life. The fear of which becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. Sacrificing life for the comforting false promise of reward after life until it's too late to live a life. Zarathustra ends the narration saying his story is over, and it's the transformed mench to ubermench hero's story now, and it's just beginning. The movie ends with the image of the hero as a not yet born super being. His story has not yet begun. The monolith is the same shape as the movie screen. During the beginning, and intermission it's the only presence on screen for a long time. Black, and exactly the shape of the monolith. The monolith takes a horizontal orientation at Jupiter like the movie screen. The change in orientation is depicted again in the corridor of light. The movie screen has been the narrator of this movie. Its story is over, and we are the hero of our own story, and our story has not yet begun. Now don't come back at me with "Wow dude, That's so deep." It's not my story. I'm just the narrator. I'm the hero of my own story. I've been gifted beyond reason in my life, and my story is just beginning. It involves what the superman does in this movie. Raising ape up to man to superman.
You are talking a lot but not saying anything of value as far as the movie goes. The apes do not know what is happening to them. The humans do not know what is happening to them. Dave gets into a struggle for survival with Hal. He wins. Then, Dave ends up in a zoo. "We" didn't evolve in this movie. "We" didn't have a quest for evolution. Something tampered with the apes' struggle for life. Kubrick said it was not God. He didn't say it was the Devil, but I think it was. The star child is an unknown entity. Good or evil, we don't know.
You're correct. The apes do not know what is happening to them, lol. I appreciate the engagement, but you're honestly missing the entire point. It was stated clearly in this video that the topics discussed are far deeper than surface level. And personally, I evolve a little more every time I rewatch the film. Thanks!
@@watermelonlalala It's okay for two different people to like the same thing for two different reasons. It doesn't mean either of them are wrong. Why is it so important for you to tell me I'm wrong and then imply that your interpretation is correct?
@@PatrickKnoll Nobody in the movie is on a quest for human evolution. They are all being tampered with as if they were animals in a laboratory. Just saying.
My claim is that we, the audience are the ones evolving. The whole video is about you as an individual taking the metaphor from the film and using it to facilitate personal growth. I'm not making any claims about the surface narrative.
So the monolith is god. OK, sounds reasonable enough. And god is the void. Is that right? In which case, god then is equivalent to the void, which means to nothingness? So are you implying a sort of deist stance and seeing god as an architect and/or prime mover only? That sounds plausible even if Kubrick always personally claimed to be a more of an atheist. However, the part I don't get at all is this idea of creating your own soul. Is this an existentialist concept? Feels like you are saying that although Kubrick shows us a vision of god, this god then essentially provides us with literally nothing at all. A god that not only leaves the universe alone but one that can't even eliminate our own inherent meaninglessness. So why bother calling this presence god at all then? Why not call it spacetime or the cosmos or something else? Not quite sure I understand really. I also didn't understand why the eclipse alignment would be arranged the other way around. I mean there's obviously no "up" once you are in space, so what difference does it make which way the image is oriented on screen? (Except that putting the sun at the top makes it laterally symmetrical which looks better.)
There's surely a lot to unpack here, but I'm glad to give it a shot. First off though, thank you for watching the video. It's obvious you paid attention and I appreciate that very much. I'd like to take one part out of there and try to explain it a little, then if you're happy with that explanation then we can move forward. I'd like to try to explain the idea of creating your own soul. I think simulation theory can help as an explanation here. When you begin playing a video game, you start as a blank slate until you begin acquiring stats and items. Then we save our game, imprinting our current save state onto the game. The game exists without us, but we leave our mark on it. It's like forging your own individuality, because as you said, we are inherently meaningless. The nuance is that it may seem like God provides us with nothing, but that is a trap that leads to nihilism. God provides us with an opportunity to live and work and actualize our potential.
@@PatrickKnoll Thanks for replying. i enjoyed your video and especially the intermission - a very nicely done skit. Regarding the theories you discuss in the video and above, are these all ones you see in 2001 itself or also more peripheral ones that you personally find interesting? I find that a bit unclear tbh. Regarding these ideas in themselves, I guess I differ in that I don't find the current simulation hypothesis very plausible, since for one thing the notion that we live inside a simulation already presupposes an original reality beyond it - or else why call it a simulation? Getting back to your reply then, it sounds like you take a tabular rasa view of humanity. I believe that can also be the existentialist position as with Sartre for instance, who seemed to believe we are entirely formed through our interactions with the world. I'm not really convinced of this either. I do think we are hugely shaped by the environment, of course, but it feels like there is a soul (if you like) that is most often veiled by these experiences, or in more psychological terms we become dissociated from our inner being. An old idea is that ordinary reality is merely "a dream" or "maya" - in modern parlance "a simulation" perhaps (as I say I don't like that term myself). Arguably - and here I am very much leaning on Eastern spiritual traditions and western mysticism of people like William Blake - this inner being or true self is a full reflection and expression of god. The Atman of Hinduism, or Buddhahood, or whatever we like to call it. In which case the actualisation is actually and finally just the uncovering of this remarkable and yet oddly concealed secret truth. Tat tvam asi. Thou art that! Not sure if any of that is related to Kubrick and 2001 but hopefully it offers a useful response in terms at least of explaining where I am coming from. Cheers again.
@@jamesboswell9324 The whole simulation theory thing is complicated. Well, obviously, but I'm speaking as to my view on it. I don't think it's quite the answer to anything, but I do think it's a very good way to describe reality in terms that we can understand. I get down with the whole blank slate idea, but it's also not quite the answer. It's somewhere in between. We have animal instincts and genetic predispositions, but our individual trauma and the way we process it is quite unique. As far as the orientation of the images, it's not really so much what's right and wrong, but the way the images are shown. They're usually shown out of continuity with each other. Like the scene you're talking about, the apes see wake up to the monolith, then suddenly it's at high noon in the shot in question. Also, the word "God" is just comfortable to me. I think that's why I use it so much. I mean the totality of things. Everything, like the universe as a whole. Like, if we live in the 3rd dimension and time is the 4th dimension, then God would be the 5th. The thing that encompasses everything else.
@@PatrickKnoll Yep a lot often hinges on the word "God". The thing that encompasses everything else is pretty good. I might add and is also beyond it. Panentheism as opposed to pantheism. Perhaps like a 5th dimension if you prefer. But when it comes to every ultimate description of reality, it's all just words in the end. Reality itself obviously extending far beyond all words.
@@jamesboswell9324 Yes, definitely. That's that eastern philosophy you were speaking of coming out. The utterly ungraspable nature of reality should turn us inward to the one thing we can control. How we react to things. Thank you so much for the discourse. To have such intelligent folks interacting with my channel makes me very happy.
nope, u need understand the author not just the director !? You can babble words all u want but this review is upside down, s5arting from a stand point of what tbe director envisjgined, no, the bloody ahuthor said everything, is a retrospective of human intellect/development/relationshi0 with technology etc but key is our ultimate internal relationship with ET entities, in my view lol a.c.clarke many amazing pieces
Are you aware that the book was written at the same time as the film, and not before? Clarke wrote the book using Kubrick's notes, and Kubrick had ultimate control. He had the power to decide what went in the novel, and that's in the contract. In fact, Kubrick kept Clarke in the dark about certain aspects, and the book is significantly different in parts. The book just simply doesn't apply to this video. Thank you!
I wish I had a response for this, but you haven't created any content that I can criticize. You surely emanate big brain energy though. Keep up the good work, videogal999 !!!
Absolutely LOVE this video. Just one thing ... of all the *ears* in the world, you had to pick trump's?? Caught me totally off guard and momentarily ruined an otherwise truly enjoyable and enlightening view
Well, it was more meant as a joke. If simply seeing the man's face gets you riled up, that might be a problem. Both sides of the aisle should at least be able to agree that he's a goofy looking mf'er, regardless of politics :)
I can certainly try. Making longer videos is something I love doing, but also wish I had more time to make. I'm sure I could talk for an hour about Donnie Darko and predestination, fate and that type of thing. If I can't, then I'm probably not dedicated enough to Sparkle Motion. Thanks!!!
Did you say "alleged" moon landing? Sorry, but you lost me there, and it was at that point that I stopped watching your video. Also, that gratuitous Trump plug was extremely off-putting.
That definitely makes sense. If our evolution is guided by us alone, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to think there is someone or something watching from the outside. If you're interested in the topic, there's a sample from a book I'm writing on Simulation Theory available for download on my website, www.RagnarokAndRevolutionize.com Thanks!
Directors aren’t always worried about accuracy, sometimes, the alignment is exaggerated to tell the story through imagery. Also with the ratio, at no point in the film or book is the golden ratio mentioned, the point of the dimensions of the monolith is that they are the first 3 squares. The novel also mentions that the measurements do not stop in 3 dimensions.
