But let’s follow what the Wachowski’s left us a little further.

Spoon boy: “Do not try and bend the spoon. That’s impossible. Instead… only try to realize the truth.”
Neo: “What truth?”
Spoon boy: “There is no spoon.”
Neo: “There is no spoon?”
Spoon boy: “Then you’ll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.”

This could be interpreted in several ways.

One way: A string-theory view of our universe that’s symbolized by the computer-coding of the matrix universe. Matrix = string network. Thus, consciousness at some level affects the vibrations of the strings, of the universe. Neo changes his consciousness (himself) and the strings bend to reflect that.

Another way: There is no “universe” out there that exists independently of a consciousness perceiving it. Or at least, we don’t yet have the ability to verify such because we are bounded by our human perception which is limited and definitely not all-seeing. (You’ll read about this more in the early lessons of the e-class.) This is a less direct metaphor than the first. Bottom line is that we cannot be certain that there is an absolute truth out there independent of human perception. Because how can we know it’s “there” if can’t perceive it? Human perception is what Morpheus calls “electrical signals interpreted by the brain” — all we are ever working with is an *interpretation.* The moment you interpret your reality to be different, it is different… because reality — what’s “real” — is merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

So changing your interpretations of the Matrix — changing your relationship to the Matrix — actually changes the Matrix itself. Because again, the Matrix has no real “fixed” state. Well, it does exist by rules that hold it in place — but it has no “fixed” meaning to the humans plugged in. That meaning is up to interpretation.

Did you read what Neo was originally supposed to say at the end of M1? From an earlier draft:

“I believe that the Matrix can remain our cage or it can become our chrysalis, that’s what you [agents and the system] helped me to understand. That to be truly free, truly free, you cannot change your cage. You have to change yourself.”

“the Matrix which is the foundation for emotional well-being, right thinking, and right action (harmonious)”

Actually, that’s what the Matrix would have you believe. That external circumstances determine your inner experience. It’s the common cultural belief.

But the Matrix is not the sole foundation, because human interpretation — consciousness — can trump it. You simply construe your circumstances in a different way, and all of a sudden a curse can be your blessing. Externally it wasn’t a “cure” or a “blessing” — but what you made it. Neo can dodge bullets because he understands that his consciousness co-creates his physical “external” experience.

However, the Matrix does have heavy influence — and mostly when you’re still asleep. Waking up entails directly experiencing how you co-create your reality — how your brain interprets life events. All of this will be covered more in the e-class. Once you realize how powerful you really are, there’s no going back to the old program.

It’s tricky drawing the line between culture and the individual, but you can still learn how to better choose which beliefs and interpretations you carry, and which ones you reject.

Thanks for sharing jasray, and feel to share your thoughts on the e-class!

Matrix = Societal beliefs, the Belief Window, culture, etc.

Surrounding the Matrix we have four essential elements of Being:
1. Thought
2. Feeling
3. Action
4. Meta-Cognition and Meta-Affection
(The two terms are really Blooms’ Taxonomy involving the Cognitive Domain–thinking–and the Affective Domain–Feeling)

Cognitive Therapy and most “pop self-help” books work from the premise that if one changes his/her “thinking,” then actions and feelings and the Matrix–all outer circumstances of poverty, sickness, sorrow, etc.–all change accordingly; hence, affirmations, positive thinking, prayer are proposed as the solution to the world’s (and patient’s) lack of harmony and happiness.

In short, the Guru says to the student, Right Thinking = Right Action.

Problem here: The emotions are messengers. One is sad because the Matrix says, “On this day of your father’s death you must be sad.” Likewise, the Doctor says to Holden Caufield in “Catcher in the Rye,” “You are crazy.” What the novel and Salinger are trying to convey to readers is that Holden Caufield is a unique individual, perfectly sane, who is being driven mad by a False Matrix.

Meta-Cognition: Why am I thinking the way I am thinking?
Meta-Affection: Why am I feeling the way I am feeling?

What I gather from Melissa is the reality that we have never really questioned the validity of the Matrix, and it is the Matrix which is the foundation for emotional well-being, right thinking, and right action (harmonious).

Nature versus Nurture theory in a sense.

Change the Matrix–the Environment–and everything else changes. If one has tried rearranging a room according to Feng Shui, the effectiveness of changing the Matrix is immediately experienced. Or if one travels to a different country.

That’s as far as I am . . .

The Big Question:

Sign me up.

I have a special interest in this topic. In general terms, I concur with the premise of the report that science does not, by itself, give an answer to all of life’s meaningful questions.

I think this is especially so as it relates to the use of the scientific method to measure, quantify, and define dimensions of subjective phenomena, whether it be feelings, faith, or both.

I look forward to reading your informed perspective.

Fred

What bothers me is when this information is taken to more fantastic conclusions than it merits.

Yes, well this all depends on the amount of research and the type of research a person has done. And at some point, you do have to have an opinion, because evidence is evidence, not necessarily proof.

I guess that I wish that they would just be clear about what conclusions their evidence supports instead of giving people a slight nudge in the direction that it doesn’t. It seems that we would be more successful at zeroing in on and identifying the truth of what is being covered up rather than being led off the deep end.

“Their” conclusions might be easier to understand if you spend hours upon hours looking over all the documents listed, but I get what you are saying. They leave you sort of hanging (though WTK has some resources that help with information overwhelm), and with little offers for solutions. You’re led off the deep end because they just dump this pile of details on you, enough to make you upset, without offering much by way of constructivism.

That’s characteristic of various if not all un-cover-up movements, and it’s dysfunctional. Because this delivery format pushes a lot of people away from considering even mainstream sources (like on WTK), and with good reason.

Let me put it a better way, and try to explore the “why” of my reaction. I think what they have done is a good thing. They have gathered and summarized a lot of information that should be out in the open to discourage whatever level of cover-up actually does occur. What bothers me is when this information is taken to more fantastic conclusions than it merits.

2 examples:
Did members of our government try to cover up details of the events of 9/11 to hide the instances where their ineptitude or malfunctioning of their organization contributed to allowing it to happen? Yeah, quite possibly. Does this mean members of our government purposely choreographed the 9/11 attacks killing thousands of Americans? I really don’t think so.

Did members of the military try to cover-up that they think that they should be concerned about UFO’s (or maybe purposely leak that to divert attention from other military operations they did not want people to know about)? Yeah, that seems to be the case. Does that mean Earth has been visited by aliens in UFO’s? I doubt it.

I think some of the wording that is put on the face of it insinuates that the grander interpretations are true, when really the details only support the not so grand (but still enough to be upset about) interpretation. I guess that I wish that they would just be clear about what conclusions their evidence supports instead of giving people a slight nudge in the direction that it doesn’t. It seems that we would be more successful at zeroing in on and identifying the truth of what is being covered up rather than being led off the deep end.