The sacrifice play

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What do you think of the concept that sometimes, it's possible to win by allowing yourself to be defeated? Is it pure hogwash, with no basis in human experience? Or do all the myths about this point to something that's actually a valid part of reality? The two examples that come to mind are Neo and Luke. Luke's story has been well discussed, but Neo's less so, due to the less favorable reception of the Matrix sequels.

It's not really a great movie, but it's an interesting parallel with ROTJ. Like Luke in ROTJ, the winning move is ultimately a sacrifice play. Here it's given a philosophical dimension, as Smith represents the purely nihilistic proposition that the purpose of life is to end, and that truth, peace, love, beauty, etc are all illusions created by the human mind. Neo has seen the real world, and has also had lots of reasons to doubt Morpheus, and yet, ultimately, because he believes in the value of human connections, he wins even as he is defeated. Yet, his understanding of systems also proves useful, as it makes it clear to him that there is only only choice he can make, and that the outcome is inevitable.

Agent Smith's goals are different than that of the Architect. The architect seeks control, but not necessarily uniformity. Smith demands uniformity, and wants to turn everyone into clones of himself. The architect ultimately has admirable qualities, Smith does not. I would say that one of the admirable qualities of the Architect is that he does have a concern for the proper functioning of his system, and for the survival of the machines. Smith values nothing except destruction.

What Neo values is the freedom of the individual, and he comes to believe that this freedom can only come through peace. He wants the other humans to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to live in the Matrix, or outside of it. Ultimately, it is not realistic for Neo to expect all humans to want to be free of the Matrix, as the case of Cipher in the first movie demonstrates. There are those who would prefer to live in the Matrix.

Do you think Neo was foolish to sacrifice his own life when some people don't even want freedom? Or was it worth it to extend the opportunity for those who want freedom? What would you do?

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, if you actually listen to the dialogue, Neo did not die to 'save everyone,' he specifically chose to save Trinity over saving humanity.

When the moment of truth came with the Architect and Neo was offered the choice to save the woman he loved (thus damning the human race to extinction) or to sacrifice Trinity to save humanity (by creating a Matrix reload with the current Zion being wiped and reseeded with 23 people of his choosing), he chose to save Trinity. The other five Ones before him each chose to save humanity.

The Oracle actually steered Neo to become the One (and shaped his pathway by "telling the future" to some of the major characters) because he would have the capacity to love a specific individual versus being more humanitarian. The Oracle's purpose (as a program) was to "unbalance the equation." The Architect's purpose was to balance things. His first two attempts at a system failed; the Oracle introduced the "illusion of choice" so that people would accept the Matrix programming; but as she evolved through the iterations of the Matrix, she came to a place where she empathized with humanity and also saw that both the Machines and Humans would benefit from peace, versus a perpetual enslavement of humanity by the Machines. That stable cycle of enslavement needed to be unbalanced.

So she steered the ascension of Neo as the sixth One as well as he and Trinity falling in love, so that in the end he would choose to NOT reload the Matrix, putting things on a collision course. Either everything would end, or there would be peace. It was a "dangerous game" as the Architect notes... and The Oracle herself provides Neo with enough information to redirect his focus at Smith versus the Machines. Smith was a godsend for her in her game, as he offered the possibility of the machines actually needing something from the humans -- there was finally a "Bartering chip."

Smith is actually the result of the Architect "balancing the equation" -- he is Neo's opposite, the Oracle explains it in detail. Neither can kill the other in a fight, and as Neo gets stronger, so does Smith. Again, the equation being balanced. His purpose is actually to absorb/kill Neo, he balances Neo who brings life.

In any case, The Oracle plays Smith by letting herself be absorbed -- she sets everything up for Neo to understand what must be done, and she makes Smith overconfident, setting up the final play. Smith is a threat to both the machines (ironic, since he was created by them to monitor their Matrix but imprinted by part of Neo at the end of The Matrix, becoming like him but the inverse) and the humans, whom he has absorbed. The machines are incapable to stopping Smith, but Neo can. (Neo doesn't understand until the very end that it's not his FIGHTING Smith and beating him that is within his province; it's allowing himself to be expunged, leaving the equation unbalanced, which now means that Smith is physically connected at the Deus ex Machina and will also be wiped out as the Architect's purpose demands -- Smith cannot exist without Neo, so by absorbing him, he removed his own reason to exist.)

Anyway, Neo is most primarily concerned about Trinity, and when she finally dies, he is stripped of just about everything. Beating Smith is the only thing he has left, and he realizes he can't even do THAT. But that is because he has never really accepted his own mortality, which has been hinted at in the three movies. ("You see? He's just a man." ~ The Merovingian. "Such a love is not fated to last." ~ Persephone, etc.) When he hears "everything that has a beginning has an end," he realizes that he is not exempt from mortality and in fact it's part of the cycle that he must embrace. And that letting Smith absorb him will also bring an end to Smith. It is his time to let go. "What are you afraid of?" he asks, as Smith freaks out, unable to comprehend past a choice he doesn't understand. "As you said, it's inevitable." What is inevitable? Neo ending, and thus Smith ending with him as well since the Architect's rules will balance things.

Anyway, I don't Neo was specifically thinking about saving all those unbelievers in the Matrix. He was fighting for Trinity for a long while. Then he fought because he was The One and it was his job to end the war in his mind, it was the only purpose he had left. What came after, I don't think he thought much about. And his sacrifice was the only tactical move he had... and was also consistent with the spiritual truth he had just figured out for himself, in terms of his role and the path of his own life. He was more focused on those things, not on whether the unbelievers deserved to have a choice.

If I were in his shoes, I would have done the same thing at the end. Let's face it, if I don't do that, EVERYONE -- even the 'deserving' -- die, so why should I punish the ones who actually want a choice/freedom just because there are some who are happy living in their own fantasy? And it's not my job to make the choice for all those people; I'm making my own choices, for my own life, and end up providing them with the ability to choose as well. If they waste their choice, that is their own business.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Anyway, I don't Neo was specifically thinking about saving all those unbelievers in the Matrix.

I'm not so sure. What about this?

I know you’re out there. I can feel you now. I know that you’re afraid. You’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone, and then I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them a world … without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

What came after, I don't think he thought much about. And his sacrifice was the only tactical move he had... and was also consistent with the spiritual truth he had just figured out for himself, in terms of his role and the path of his own life. He was more focused on those things, not on whether the unbelievers deserved to have a choice. [/quote]

Good point... He kept fighting, as he said, because he chose to... meaning, because he wanted to. He doesn't mention anything about the rest of the people in the Matrix. His struggle is because of his own desires, but in doing so, it opens up possibilities for others. The others probably weren't in the forefront of his mind the whole time. Do you think he recognizes that he can't control what the other people do? He can't make them pick what he thinks is the right choice.. does he understand that they're going to do whatever it is they're going to do?

If I were in his shoes, I would have done the same thing at the end. Let's face it, if I don't do that, EVERYONE -- even the 'deserving' -- die, so why should I punish the ones who actually want a choice/freedom just because there are some who are happy living in their own fantasy? And it's not my job to make the choice for all those people; I'm making my own choices, for my own life, and end up providing them with the ability to choose as well. If they waste their choice, that is their own business.

Exactly. I think I would, or at least I hope I would. I think it's important to go out with a smile on his face, and he did that. He didn't do that out of any anticipation of a future reward in another life. He did that for other reasons, although I'm not sure if that's because he was pretty sure it would work, because it felt good, or because he'd had enough of fighting Smith. Maybe it's all three.

I think the proverb that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink is a valid and applicable one.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm not so sure. What about this?

What came after, I don't think he thought much about. And his sacrifice was the only tactical move he had... and was also consistent with the spiritual truth he had just figured out for himself, in terms of his role and the path of his own life. He was more focused on those things, not on whether the unbelievers deserved to have a choice.

I consider that a "pretty little tag" to the first movie, which was standalone, and more describing the attitude of the filmmakers versus Neo. They say stuff similar to that in many of their movies. [Most obvious: Look at the Sonmi-451 stuff in Cloud Atlas.]

They took the next few years off, then did the last two movies back to back, and in those movies regardless of whatever Neo said at the very end of Matrix, you don't really see him acting out of that basis. It could just be a failing of the script, but it's very explicit when you watch and listen to dialogue that Neo is generally just 'being Superman" and doing good stuff, but the things he actually says and does revolve around Trinity and being committed to her above other causes, and it actually becomes a keystone of the plot. (I mean, honestly, I think Smith was truly dead at the end of that movie... then it seemed like they realized how they could bring him back.)

Good point... He kept fighting, as he said, because he chose to... meaning, because he wanted to. He doesn't mention anything about the rest of the people in the Matrix. His struggle is because of his own desires, but in doing so, it opens up possibilities for others. The others probably weren't in the forefront of his mind the whole time. Do you think he recognizes that he can't control what the other people do? He can't make them pick what he thinks is the right choice.. does he understand that they're going to do whatever it is they're going to do?

Neo is not an intellectual, at least not as portrayed by Keanu Reeves. He acts and feels instinctively; he doesn't necessarily think through everything. I don't think he fully has thought through it as you would, nor does he care to.

Exactly. I think I would, or at least I hope I would. I think it's important to go out with a smile on his face, and he did that. He didn't do that out of any anticipation of a future reward in another life. He did that for other reasons, although I'm not sure if that's because he was pretty sure it would work, because it felt good, or because he'd had enough of fighting Smith. Maybe it's all three.

I think the proverb that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink is a valid and applicable one.

Yeah, I agree with that last bit.
As it happens, with all the Matrix Online stuff (which I think lost its way, before it went offline after a few years), the truce gets broken and people were cheating. Jerks.

My impression is that Neo (1) realized it would work, as per the Oracle who he decided to trust, and (2) it's okay to accept death after a lifetime of loss, it's just part of the cycle, and the entire last movie is him being stripped down like an onion with one loss after the next, it was a "death process" and his final decision to embrace his role is just the culmination of what was already happening, a process he had insisted on fighting instead of accepting.

I consider it a huge "Western meets Eastern thought" kind of movie, or "hot versus cold cultures" as per Strauss. Western thought tends to be very linear and pushing forward all the time (progress, usually associated with tech and also leads to the drive to 'win/succeed'), other cultures can more cyclic / repeating in nature and life/death is also a cycle, you can't "win" all the time but instead there is an organic process governing rise and decline.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I consider that a "pretty little tag" to the first movie, which was standalone, and more describing the attitude of the filmmakers versus Neo. They say stuff similar to that in many of their movies. [Most obvious: Look at the Sonmi-451 stuff in Cloud Atlas.]

True... it almost sounds like it steps outside the universe of the movie and is speaking to the world outside. It has the sense of "breaking the 4th wall."

They took the next few years off, then did the last two movies back to back, and in those movies regardless of whatever Neo said at the very end of Matrix, you don't really see him acting out of that basis. It could just be a failing of the script, but it's very explicit when you watch and listen to dialogue that Neo is generally just 'being Superman" and doing good stuff, but the things he actually says and does revolve around Trinity and being committed to her above other causes, and it actually becomes a keystone of the plot. (I mean, honestly, I think Smith was truly dead at the end of that movie... then it seemed like they realized how they could bring him back.)

Yeah, that's a classic case of changing things around after a massive hit in order to make two more movies. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

Neo is not an intellectual, at least not as portrayed by Keanu Reeves. He acts and feels instinctively; he doesn't necessarily think through everything. I don't think he fully has thought through it as you would, nor does he care to.

But, woah... he knows Kung Fu!

I consider it a huge "Western meets Eastern thought" kind of movie, or "hot versus cold cultures" as per Strauss. Western thought tends to be very linear and pushing forward all the time (progress, usually associated with tech and also leads to the drive to 'win/succeed'), other cultures can more cyclic / repeating in nature and life/death is also a cycle, you can't "win" all the time but instead there is an organic process governing rise and decline.

Interesting. Yes... there's the idea of the Architect trying to balance the equation, which I suppose is like Taoism, although I don't entirely understand Taoism. There are also references to karma and reincarnation throughout the movie, as well as talk of "ending the cycle."

Regarding the choice the Architect presents before Neo.... is the Architect correct in the fact that his
choice will lead to extinction of humans? The architect isn't infallible. I can't help but wonder if there's something he's not seeing there.

I also wonder if this points to the fact that maybe the Architect sees himself as helping the humans in some way, by protecting them from
themselves. Is it possible that the Architect, despite his contempt for them, is acting out of altruistic/benevolent motives, even if he would never admit it? Or is speaking of motives utterly inaccurate for describing a machine? (I would argue that it makes sense... an AI could have a preferred state that it would attempt to reach, which is analogous to a motive.)

 

[Totenkindly]

I just ran across this page:
Coronas Hide » The Matrix: Revolutions, Explained

Check out the "Neo's Ascension" section. Pretty good.
(It also reminds me a bit of a climactic event in Donaldson's "White Gold Wielder.")


(And this site seems to capture much of my assessment of what happens / answers to questions from the movies:
The MATRIX 101 - Understanding The Matrix Trilogy )

Interesting. Yes... there's the idea of the Architect trying to balance the equation, which I suppose is like Taoism, although I don't entirely understand Taoism. There are also references to karma and reincarnation throughout the movie, as well as talk of "ending the cycle."

Everything is cyclic. Even the ending song. It's pretty heady stuff.

Regarding the choice the Architect presents before Neo.... is the Architect correct in the fact that his
choice will lead to extinction of humans? The architect isn't infallible.

He's not, but basically (1) the machines will exterminate Zion, they have done so five prior times and have become exceedingly efficient at it, and (2) the Matrix itself will crash because the tipping point has been reached -- the anomoly of choice -- so after this point too many humans will leave the Matrix and/or the system will fall to chaos. Not sure if he's referring to some physical crash related to the Power Fields or whatever else, but it's clear the Architect believes the system structure can't maintain its integrity very soon and that the human batteries will die because of it.

Note that the Architect and the Oracle never outright lie about things. (I might even be able to make that claim about machines in general, but I'd have to review dialogue. Do the Agents actually lie?) The Architect is very candid; the Oracle speaks in generalities and sometimes speak in "truths" that are actually just possibilities and reminds them that she can only open doors but they have to choose to go through. [She tells Neo at some point that he's "not the One, sorry kiddo," but that's only after Neo decides he's not the One, so she's actually telling the truth at the time... Neo never becomes the One until he decides he is.]

I also wonder if this points to
the fact that maybe the Architect sees himself as helping the humans in some way, by protecting them from
themselves. Is it possible that the Architect is acting out of altruistic/benevolent motives, even if he would never admit it? Or is describing motives utterly inaccurate for describing a machine? (I would argue that it makes sense... an AI could have a preferred state that it would attempt to reach, which is analogous to a motive.)

I don't think you can read the Architect as having human instincts. That wasn't part of his design, it's why his attempts to create two Matrixes failed initially. So he took the Oracle's idea of the Matrix (Matrix 3.0), which worked for 99% of the population, and then created a routine that would allow the remaining 1% of failures to be dealt with -- at a certain point, the One would manifest as an embodiment of the anomaly of choice, and then the One would be led to a fateful meeting with the doors and the Architect, whereupon he makes a choice; and hopefully the code of the One would be injected back into the Source to reload the Matrix, starting back at the original configuration.

It's the way a machine would stabilize a predictably failing system, you just create a loop mechanism to restart things without having to intervene from the outside per se. You also see him responding to the parameters he was given (humans are enslaved, make them happy to remain as batteries) without ever caring whether that was ethical or not. He didn't seem particularly malice-driven, even if he thought humans illogical; he was just doing what he was designed to do.

[Kind of funny: The Merovingian has a lot to say about this deterministic element and how you're just a pawn if you're doing things without knowing the "why" of them.]

Anyway, there's was a reason he speaks the way he does, to emphasize himself as a being of pure logic. It's clear that the Oracle was designed to engage humans and as a side effect actually grew to want the system to change (so both machines and humans could grow); that wasn't the Architect's job, his job was to create a Matrix that maintained stability. How humans fare in that system isn't really a consideration. At the end, he doesn't really seem to care whether humans are freed or not; he just cares that the system continues to run sensibly. There is no real impetus in him to see humans enslaved OR free, tbh.

 

[Qlip]

I'm not entirely sure I can answer the O.P. from a very abstract point of view, as far as the motivations the benefits of dying to obtain a goal. I don't think I could do that, but I could see myself doing something very similar, end-gaming because I couldn't live with the alternative. I guess the only real difference between those is motivation, between "I give myself for the future", and "I'd rather take the system down than live in it."

In a different vein, these movies are very much based in the idea of mythologized internal narrative, the archetypical path of personal growth. I feel like what this type of sacrifice speaks to is giving up your own ego to become renewed. The idea that better places can only be arrived at if you don't bring yourself.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

In a different vein, these movies are very much based in the idea of mythologized internal narrative, the archetypical path of personal growth. I feel like what this type of sacrifice speaks to is giving up your own ego to become renewed. The idea that better places can only be arrived at if you don't bring yourself.

See, I've experienced that situation, but it was the opposite for me. It involved getting in touch with what I really want and who I actually am.

I definitely think I brought myself. It wasn't about me giving up my ego, it was about me being comfortable with it. In the process, I found that the lines between selfish and selfless blurred. I experienced something wonderful, and I wanted other people to experience it to. What helped me here was saying.... enough is enough, I'm tired of accommodating the unreasonable demands of other people. Basically, I kept giving them an inch, and they kept on asking for another inch. Finally I reached an impasse, upon which any further compromise had been intolerable.... it became apparent that I was accepting feedback from people who knew less about what they were talking about than I did. I was on the right path, and what they wanted was to steer myself off of it, perhaps because they were worried that others might follow.

I couldn't compromise any more because it became apparent that this was just delaying another confrontation. The compromise was one-sided, in that they were constantly finding ways to get around what they had agreed to, and they were constantly piling more and more demands on me. The evidence before me was incontrovertible; there was nothing I could do to mollify them. The only logical path that remained to me was to stick to my guns, even if it resulted in expulsion. I would say it would be a mistake to call this process selfless, as it was very much about what I wanted. It's just that I wanted something not just for myself, but for others. Therefore, I opted to show people another way and inform as many people as I could about what was going on. I was a whistleblower, in a sense.

Of course, the issue in question is rather minor in the grand scheme of things, and yet, even so, I know that walking out with my head held high felt awesome. Essentially, sometimes you gotta let people know when something's rotten and ideas have outlived their usefulness, even if there will be repercussions for you. Sometimes that's the only thing that can wake people up.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yeah, I see positives to both what you and Qlip have said. Sometimes it depends on the individual as to which "path" is more dominant in their life, and sometimes we can benefit from both mentalities depending on the area of life we are thinking about.

I was another who wasn't sure who or what she was, or what she wanted in life, so everything became about going along with doing what others wanted. I actually could not hear and understand the ego voice (by Freudian standards, I was all superego). I consider my point of reaching adulthood occuring when I finally gave credence to my own ego for once and was willing to lose everything else in order to be true to myself. But i didn't mean I never also experienced some "stripping down" experiences in my life as well, things I attached my identity to in lieu of my inner voice, that I then had to relinquish in order to hear my actual voice.

I think Neo, though, was essentially "Superman" and much of Revolutions is realizing all his power was really just another control for the system, and then he is slowly stripped of all that power and in the end voluntarily chooses to lay it down. (Something Smith cannot fathom doing.)