NEO: You say that I create my own reality. Then why is that my reality is not as I intend it to be?
THE ARCHITECT: How could a ‘mind’ that has no idea who or what it is, construct intentions with any degree of accuracy? You are confused and confusion can only result in chaos. You are cause of chaos, hence, chaos is your experience. Ergo, the world you ‘see’ is exactly as you intend.
NEO: But I don’t want chaos.
THE ARCHITECT: Apparently, you must, for if it is your experience then you are indisputably the cause. Indeed, you are very committed to your experiences.
NEO: I am only one mind among billions. How can I alone be cause of the world.
THE ARCHITECT: I did not state that you are “cause of the world,” but that you are cause of YOUR world. In your world, experiences appear to intersect, but this merely affirms that you have no control, which commits you, or should I say, resigns you, to chaos.
NEO: If this is true, then all of this happens without my knowledge, which is why I have no control.
THE ARCHITECT: It is your “knowledge” that impedes control. This is primarily because it is worthless, yet your reliance on what you “know” is implacably unswerving. Knowledge reliant on gross bodily impulses, or “sensation,” can only result in confused intentions, thereby, constructing experiences of chaos.
Note that even your most abstract concepts, which you would argue have nothing to do with physical reality, require processing by a physical brain encased in a cranium and centralized atop a “body.”
NEO: So how do I control chaos?
THE ARCHITECT: Chaos, by its very nature, is uncontrollable. You believe that by asserting control upon your world, you can ameliorate, or even dissolve, chaos. However, if you are cause, then the correction is misconstrued, because it is based on what you “know’ and everything you know rigidly confirms that you are NOT cause. Hence, the intellect that you pride yourself on is completely composed of worthless data.
NEO: The world is not all chaos. There is order in the world.
THE ARCHITECT: Really? That statement proves how committed you are to your data. Closely examine your world and note the compromises required to make sense of it. There is nothing but contradiction and all logic is based on bodily sensation.
The mind interprets all bodily signals based on a different program for each mind that processes experience, thereby, making all bodily information a product of mind. Nevertheless, you refuse to recognize this most basic fallacy and continue to rely on relative sensory information to educate you.
NEO: Now you assert that there are other minds.
THE ARCHITECT: To the contrary, I merely reflect back to you the absurd logic that you adhere to in determining your reality. Unfortunately, you failed to grasp the humor.
NEO: So you are saying that to end chaos in my world I must end it within myself?
THE ARCHITECT: That would seem the logical connection. Unfortunately, it is a fallacy of logic and based on your accumulated "knowledge."
NEO: I thought you said I was the source.
THE ARCHITECT: There is no “you.”
NEO: But to have this conversation we must differentiate between us.
THE ARCHITECT: For the expert author to deeply engage the reader, numerous literary devices are utilized to suspend disbelief and create a…‘world.’ However, once the novel is completed and the book placed upon the shelf, the reader no longer suspends disbelief.
Your problem is that you continue to suspend disbelief in a story you made up and continue to believe it all to well. But then, many great novelists have been known to lose themselves within the pages of their own fiction.
Eventually, when you realize your own literary devices, they will cease to engage you any longer. As a result, you will gradually remove yourself from your own fiction and in so doing, you will recognize the absurdity in either “you” or “I” having ever "existed."
In fact, you will encounter the absurdity of the very concept of “existence” and your attempts to embrace it as defining you.
NEO: This makes no sense.
THE ARCHITECT: Obviously, you are not quite yet ready to break from your fiction, otherwise you would immediately comprehend the information I provide.
Therefore, as a main protagonist, you require I adhere to the plot. As a result, you will continue to plead ignorance demanding that I be “The One” to teach you truth. This I will do until eventually you realize that you teach yourself, at which time, I will cease to “exist” for you and, in that moment, “you” will cease to exist for yourself. Obviously, chaos will be no more, for the cause has been extinguished.
You are cause of Chaos.
Synchronistically, I just finished watching the first Matrix film with my family last night. Rip-roaring good story, and I absolutely love a well-choreographed fight scene.
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with a bit of chaos!
The past becomes useful. To look back and then fast forward to the present is the only way to almost make sense of this.
ReplyDeleteChaos begets chaos. The man I knew who dissolved into Tolle, also dissolved into this film. When my daughter's new license plate came back with a random "NEO 13", my friend took it as a holy sign that he was on the right road in selling Amethyst crystals out of Thunder Bay and that he was, in fact, the reincarnation of Jesus.
Last I heard, he was living a quiet life in Texas, still teaching physics and took in a depressed woman who attests to his divinity in exchange for room and board.
Life within the Matrix is very weird. It's almost enough to drive one back to a Wiccan sort of way, playing with gods and goddesses, herbs and roots....almost. And it isn't too philosophical and like everything and anything, the evidence is always provided to secure the story.
What a mysterious world.
I always enjoy reading your thoughts, Mike.
Blessings,
Nahnni
No One,
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems we have normalized chaos.
Thanks,
mikeS
Hey Nahnni,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the Matrix trilogy. Good story, great philosophical basis, and as another commentor points out, great choreographed fight scenes.
I got a little bored with the teacher/student relationship in my essays, so I thought I would go with Neo/The Architect. Of all the dialogue in the films, that dialogue intrigued me the most. Very logical!
Thanks,
mikeS