The matrix explained

Asatho Maa Sad Gamaya,
Thamaso Maa Jyothir Gamaya,
Mrithyo Maa Amritham Gamaya.

(
Lead me from untruth to truth,
Lead me from darkness to light,
Lead me from death to immortality.
)

Thus ends the Matrix revolutions, with a prayer for moksha from the eternal cycle of birth and death.

Much has been written about the trilogy. Popular opinion seems to be against the sequels. Too many seem to have gone to the theatres to find answers to the tantalising questions posed by reloaded. Perhaps, the greatest triumph of the trilogy is that there were no answers. Only an interesting way to look at life and ask questions that the vast majority would never think of.

It wasn't perhaps the easiest of films to understand. Everyone seems to have interpreted the film through the filter of their own beliefs mostly religious. The fact that the brothers chose to derive from multiple belief systems makes every interpretation seem correct.

Here is my interpretation.

Humanity has been enslaved by the machines to generate energy for them to run. The fact that skies have been scorched by a nuclear war prevents them from using the sun as the source. Now to keep the humans alive and interested, the machines plugged them into an illusory world called the matrix.

The architect, the program responsible for the creation of the matrix, created a perfect world in its first avatar. But he soon saw that perfection was not acceptable to humans. Indeed humans rejected this world ( Smith says humans define their existence through misery ) and this led to the crash of the system. The architect then devised a program with a lesser mind, a more intuitive one if you will, the oracle to understand human behaviour and build a system which will last longer. The oracle understood that humans needed to believe that they have choice even if there was really none. This arrangement worked out well for 99% of the humans. But a 1% of the humans still saw through this illusory world and felt something was not right. Now it was the oracle's responsibility along with Mr.Smith to “control” this few people and ensure that they don't go out of hand.

The oracle did this with prophesies which led to the creation of zion and the human resistance. At the end of every cycle, there would be a war between the machines and humans with the One required to make a choice : Whether to return to the source and reload the matrix or to go back to the matrix and risk complete anihilation of humanity and the machines. For five times, Neo has chosen to return to the source reloading the matrix and picking the 23 people who will lead the human resistance in the next cycle. It is not Neo but the oracle which makes the choice for him everytime.

The oracle got tired of this endless cycle of creation and destruction. She wanted a way out, a peaceful way out.

She played a game, a dangerous one. She introduced a new variable into the system. Love in the form of trinity.

She hints to trinity even before she sees Neo that she will fall in love with the one thereby ensuring she does.

When the time comes for Neo to make the choice, for the first time he choses to go back into the matrix. Indeed he doesn't need to make the decision. Like the architect says, the decision has already been made by the oracle when she made him fall in love. All he needed to do was to understand it.

Smith is again different this time around. Neo entered him at the end of the part one and changed him to become his antithesis. Now smith is a program with “one like” powers. This ensures that he goes beyond the matrix to the other world thereby taking a step beyond the machine's control.

Seraph, the oracle's bodyguard is ofcourse a previous incarnation of the one and the one which caries the program code of the one which the oracle uses to create the one in every cycle.

Cut back to the sixth cycle. Love makes neo re-enter the matrix to save trinity. He brings her back from the dead at the end of reloaded. Remember she did the same thing to him at the end of part one.

The war between the machines and the humans start for the sixth time. Smith meanwhile has found his way into the real world and engages in a battle with Neo blinding him in the process. With his eyes blinded, Neo is able to see for the first time. Neo and trinity go back to the machine world into the heart of the machine city. The machines attack and trinity dies relieving neo of the final attachment he had. Now Neo understands his true karma without the distraction of love.

Neo goes on to make a deal with the machines. Peace in return for the killing of Smith who had gone beyond the control of the machines. Smith and Neo engage in a battle of titanic proportions reaching nowhere since they are both equally powerfull.

At the very end, Oracle speaking through smith shows Neo the way out. The death of neo is the purpose of Smith's life. Smith will die the instant neo dies. The solution is clear. Like christ, neo dies for humanity by carrying the burden of their sins ( Smith stands in for evil ) for them.

If you have read till this, you would have seen I have not chosen to comment upon the little girl sati. Indeed her presence puzzles me. What does she stand for ? The next generation of programs able to feel emotion ? An elaborate take on Shiva's wife Sati who commits suicide by burning herself and being reborn as parvati ( Trinity being reborn as Sati ?? ). Or is she the next oracle ? Or the next One ? Or the next architect who defines a matrix born out of love ?

Still a long way to go before I understand the matrix. If you have any thoughts, jot them down here.

Capitalism is not the answer

I love a good debate. Occasionally, even flame wars will do. If you read my comments elsewhere on the net, you will, more often than not, see me take a contrarian view to the popular opinion, just to liven up the debate.

Something of a prankster ( slashdotters might prefer flamebait ), you might call me. Occasionally, I step beyond the line and get burned but then that is an occupational hazard.

It is my belief that more can be learned by seeing the issue from both sides than passionately sticking to a single viewpoint. Everything is relative, anyways. In my school days, we used to do this fun activity where the same guy had to defend and criticize a topic, switching viewpoints at the sound of a bell. “Just a minute”, I think it was called.

I learned this form of debate growing up in kerala discussing films. Yes, films. Keralites devote ( atleast used to ) an unusual amount of time discussing the question : “Mamooty, Mohanlal : Who is better ?” Since I didn't have a preference either way, I used to oppose the prevaling opinion in the crowd that I was in, for the sake of a debate :-)

I think, it is this middle of the road approach, that made me an Agnostic. I enjoy riling up atheists by asking them to explain the fundamental issue about the origin of the universe ( “How something can never come out of nothing” ). To theists, I normally ask, “If God exists, why can't he do a better job at proving he exists”.

Ofcourse, there is a problem with not having strong principles, best said by the quote,
“If you don't stand for anything, you will fall for everything”.

Still, I prefer it this way.

Why am I writing all this ? I have been part of several debates on the future of america's economy on public forums lately. I have written both extremely positive and highly negative predictions based on the type of the forum I am in ( the opposite view to the popular opinion ).

Paul krugman and others well known columnists have been extremely critical about Bush's tax cuts and the burgeoning US budget, current account and trade deficits. Paul krugman infact goes on to say, in one of his regular columns in NYT, that America possibly can face an argentina style crisis if tax cuts are not rolled back and government spending curbed. Coming as it is from the man considered to be the world's foremost expert on currency crises, it has caused widespread concern.

These columns about “america needs a billion a day in FDI to finance the ever increasing debt of the country” or the “fundamental shift in the economy which has resulted in a jobless recovery” get endlessly discussed in public forums with ridiculous suggestions like “Let us build a fortress around america and ban all imports” thrown around as possible solutions.

It is fun to occassionally step in and point out that for the last few decades, america benefited most from globalisation. Now is payback time.

What americans are most concerned is the apparent lack of care shown by big companies when sending jobs offshore. They forget Capitalism is not driven by ethics but by profits. Capitalism is inherently cannibalistic in nature, a dog eats dog mentality as well chronicled in the history of microsoft.

There is already increasing evidence that although the US GDP is picking up, the benefits will not reach the “common” man but will stay at the top level in the hands of the already rich. Fortune's latest list of the 400 richest americans seems to confirm this when it says that the rich got richer. Not consistent with the situation on the ground. Infact, The word “Oligarchy” has started making the rounds.

Ofcourse, when I point out all these on the “Nothing can touch US” forums, I get very few people to agree with me. More often than not, I get flamed to hell :-)

I like the socialist welfare economies of europe. They have taken the middle road between capitalism and communism and seemed non the worse for it. There is a serious risk of deflation for a few of them but then that might be because of the export dependance on the states.

China is an interesting study. Perhaps, theirs is the hardest task of all. To preserve a communist styled leadership while having a capitalist economy. For now, the western MNCs are interested in tapping china's huge and seemingly endless supply of $100 a month cheap labour. Once popular issues like China's human rights track record have conveniently been relegated to the background in a relentless pursuit to improve their bottomline, a popular buzzword in a recession. If china manages to pull it off inspite of all these, it will be a miracle unmatched in the annals of human history. Only time will tell.

Finally, there is India. If there is any award for the country with the maximum potential, we will walk away with it hands down. Sadly, the potential rarely gets realised. Unfortunately, the very diversity that we are so proud of is proving to be our bane. A collective decision is more or less impossible in our scheme of things.

Like our cricket team's reliance on sachin, will we will always end up depending on individual brilliance ( Naidu ? ) to save us at the end of the day.

Luckily, we seem to be finding a new hero ( anju george ? ) regularly these days. Maybe, it is a tide of better things to come.

All these forums did help in increasing my limited knowledge of how the global economy works. Till I lose interest, my occassional ramblings on politics/economics will continue. Anyone wants to take a contrarian view ?