So my question is: do you view darkness (i.e. nonexistence, death, the end of the world) as the ultimate fate of all worlds?
I don't equate death with nonexistence. If there really were such a thing as nothing, we wouldn't be here. Even darkness is something, namely the absence of light. And, space isn't truly a vacuum, according to Einstein. The universe may be finite, but existence is infinite.
You and I are just leaves on a tree. One day we'll fall to the earth and become part of the soil, but the tree will still live. The roots will bring our essence back up the tree, and new leaves will sprout. We've been on this earth for centuries, and, even after we die, we'll probably be here for many centuries to come.
"I carry the dust of a journey
That cannot be shaken away
It lives deep within me
For I breathe it every day
You and I are yesterdays answers
The earth of the past comes to flesh
Eroded by time's rivers
To the shapes we now possess
Come share of my breath and my substance
And mingle our streams and our times
In bright infinite moments
Our reasons are lost in our lives"
If you found out that the sun was going to snuff out tomorrow, reducing all our lives and accomplishments to zero, would that bother you, or would you see it as the ultimate peace?
As far as whether death is good, bad, or peaceful, those concepts only have meaning to humans. Quite simply, a blue shirt is a blue shirt, regardless of whether you like the color or not. But, of course, I am human. So, yes, it would bother if the human race were to face extinction. Perhaps it will actually happen some day, but in that case our worries would be over.
reply
share
rooprect
10 years ago
If there really were such a thing as nothing, we wouldn't be here.
That's an interesting thought that could keep me busy for a while. I agree that it's impossible for something to spring from nothing. So if we accept that we're looking at something, then "something" must've always existed, in some form or another.
I do think, though, that there can (and will) exist a state of relative nothing. A sort of "white noise" in the cosmos, where nothing has any form. No planets, no stars and definitely no humans. I guess it would be a soup of disordered "something" like what we all sprouted from. I sort of treat that as "nothingness" even though I agree that there is no such thing as nothingness.
As far as whether death is good, bad, or peaceful, those concepts only have meaning to humans.
I agree again. But I would add that there is a scientific definition of "peace" (i.e. particles at rest, or the absence of energy) that mirrors the human definition. I flip back & forth on whether I think it's a good thing. Of course it means the end of all our worldly accomplishments, and it renders our lives somewhat meaningless. But at the same time it means the end of all suffering. And isn't that what we crave also?
So on the whole, I view Janos's "darkness" as a good thing, even though it's bittersweet on an emotional level.
That's a very nice poem you quoted. Who wrote it?
Just for the sake of arguing :p I'll fire back with Byron haha...
"And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
reply
share
ip7412413189
10 years ago
I do think, though, that there can (and will) exist a state of relative nothing. A sort of "white noise" in the cosmos, where nothing has any form. No planets, no stars and definitely no humans.
That's the 'direction' that our universe is heading. However, we don't know what caused the Big Bang in the first place, so we can't rule out the possibility of another one.
I flip back & forth on whether I think it's a good thing. Of course it means the end of all our worldly accomplishments, and it renders our lives somewhat meaningless. But at the same time it means the end of all suffering. And isn't that what we crave also?
We crave what we need to live. We feel hungry because we need to eat. From this point of view, suffering is actually motivation, but so is pleasure. Food tastes yummy, so that's why we eat it.
Unfortunately, our survival instincts are difficult to control. Our endless wars are really just conflicts over the resources we need to live. However, population control and learning to share is probably better than fighting to the death. Perhaps in a very distant future, everyone will have everything they need and humanity will live a peaceful existence. At the moment, however, we're still engaged in a desperate struggle to survive.
So on the whole, I view Janos's "darkness" as a good thing, even though it's bittersweet on an emotional level.
If they achieved this end by drugging him and depriving him of his freedom, I don't think it's 'cricket'. It's arrogant to presume to know what's better for him than he himself does.
reply
share
rooprect
10 years ago
suffering is actually motivation
Words to live by. I like the way you think.
If they achieved this end by drugging him and depriving him of his freedom, I don't think it's 'cricket'. It's arrogant to presume to know what's better for him than he himself does.
Funny, I've seen this film 5 times and it never occurred to me until now that his state of bliss was due to him being drugged up. I'll have to watch the movie again with that in mind, but when I posed this question I was thinking his numbed state was due to his own mind snapping. Sort of like...
spoiler for the movie Brazil below (don't read if you haven't seen it!)...
At the end of Brazil when Mr. Lowery has a mental breakdown and ends up quietly humming to himself, much to the dismay of his torturers. In Brazil the breakdown is not due to any drugs--his torturers evidently wanted to inflict pure unadulterated pain. But Lowery's mind, overloaded, recoiled to a "happy place".
If Janos' numbness ("darkness") is due to drugs, then I agree that not only is it arrogant of humans to impose this upon him, but it's not even true bliss. It's artificially created and maintained.
But I wonder, if an overloaded mind simply snaps and regresses to a state of amnesia or thoughtlessness, couldn't that be viewed as the natural progression of intelligence? Our brains will eventually turn to jelly and all our knowledge & experience will vanish. Certainly we fear this. But if it is inevitable, then maybe our fear is irrational, just as many people deny the idea of death.
reply
share
ip7412413189
10 years ago
Funny, I've seen this film 5 times and it never occurred to me until now that his state of bliss was due to him being drugged up.
I am thinking in terms of political conspiracy. Perhaps when the helicopter picked Janos up, he told them what he knew. Since they were also part of the conspiracy, they institutionalized him in order to shut him up.
I guess you're wondering what conspiracy I'm talking about. Janos overheard the nihilist in the trailer. Since the Prince spoke through an interpreter, I presume he is a Soviet. Based on his physical description, the Prince is also a puppet. Whoever is controlling him is deliberately starting the riots. Why? To provide the Soviets with a just cause for military intervention.
In terms of real historical events: After a bloody revolution in 1956, a provisional government was established, and the Soviets had agreed to withdraw from Hungary. Then, during a cease fire, in late October, armed protesters attacked the Working People's Party headquarters in Budapest, believing that political prisoners were being held there. Immediately afterwards, the Soviets reversed their position on Hungary's autonomy. Allegedly, they used the incident to justify military intervention.
Notice that the events in the film take place in November. Based on the dialogue between Aunt Tunde and the Soviet troops, she is part of the 'conspiracy'. The chief of police, an impotent conscientious objector, is just being manipulated by Tunde. Uncle Gyorgy, a social reclusive, is just being ignored. Uncle Lajos, the cobbler, was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, unless equipping rioters with shoes is a crime.
I still don't get what any of this has to do with a power struggle between the forces of Good and Evil. It seems Andreas Werckmeister had devised a system of turning organs, Werckmeister Temperament. More importantly, Werckmeister believed that musical counterpoint was tied to the motion of the planets. Somehow this relates Gyorgy's own metaphysical musings to Janos and his solar eclipse demonstration in the bar.
Note: For those of you (me) who know almost nothing about music. Counterpoint involves two interrelated melodies, one high and the other low. At some point in the composition, the melodies switch relative positions. Namely, the high melody becomes low, and vice versa. This technique was used a lot by Bach.
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/25/nigerian-man-locked-up-atheist
reply
share
rooprect
10 years ago
Excellent indepth political analysis. When it comes to European political history I know squat. So unfortunately I can't comment much, but logically what you say makes sense. I think it's about time for me to watch the movie again with all these thoughts in mind.
About music: that's the one thing I do know a little about, having wasted decades of my life trying to learn music theory! The metaphor of Werckmeister, to me, is about how humans have created artificial order around natural things. The natural music scales are "imperfect" because, for some reason, the numbers just don't add up to what we want. The Western music scale is based on 12 notes which make up a full cycle. You start on 'A' and end on 'A' theoretically. But in reality it doesn't get you back to 'A'; it falls about 1/10th of a tone shy. So Werckmeister designed a way of "rounding up" the notes so everything adds up. Modern pianos use Werckmeister's tuning because it's a pretty good approximation, but the fact is it's a little out of tune with the natural order of things.
A planetary analogy would be how the earth goes around the sun in 365 1/4 days, not a "perfect" 365. We don't like that. Calendars would be a nightmare. So we humans have created an "artificial" year of exactly 365 days, and every 4 years we sneak the missing day back in.
What you said about Werckmeister on planetary motion is very compelling, I'll have to read up on that. It really does bring the metaphor home, especially since Tarr sets the stage right in the beginning talking about planets.
I think Tarr's statement is that "natural order" is something we humans cannot grasp, so we are constantly creating "artificial order" to understand & control the world around us. Perhaps the very idea of government is unnatural. Definitely the idea of people arbitrarily following 1 ruler (here, the Prince) is unnatural. Since when do animals & trees need to follow anyone?
This would fall in line with your thoughts on a Russian conspiracy. It's just another arbitrary government seeking to impose itself on a country, creating its own idea of order. But how can any totalitarian system claim to do what's right for each individual at the same time? Their answer is, just like notes in the musical scale, people must be "rounded up" or made to live in an unnatural way, for the sake of maintaining uniformity & control. The riot scene was bone chilling because it wasn't anarchy & people running amuck; it was a very controlled (and very disturbing) demonstration of humans doing the wrong thing in an ordered fashion!
reply
share