Discussion:
religion
(too old to reply)
John Smith
2003-07-25 06:21:59 UTC
Permalink
was Kubrick catholic?
Thornhill
2003-07-25 15:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
was Kubrick catholic?
No - he was Jewish. Don't think he (or his parents) were practising, though.
Darth
Not that that "practising" makes any difference. ("What's bred in the
bone will come out in the flesh.")

Thornhill
Matthew Dickinson
2003-07-25 20:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
was Kubrick catholic?
No - he was Jewish. Don't think he (or his parents) were practising, though.
Darth
Pretty sure he was actually Kaspar Hauser.

Matthew
Magic7Ball
2003-07-25 20:30:57 UTC
Permalink
If there was one conservation I could have had with Kubrick, it would have
pertained to his thoughts on God.
Wordsmith
2003-07-26 00:55:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magic7Ball
If there was one conservation I could have had with Kubrick, it would have
pertained to his thoughts on God.
That's why I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall within hearing
distance of a chat between Stanley and the Pope. Christiane got an audience
at least. Lucky her!

Wordsmith :)
Sébastien Smith
2003-07-27 04:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magic7Ball
If there was one conservation I could have had with Kubrick, it would have
pertained to his thoughts on God.
I agree on that previous comment.....

I wondered, especially since he was jewish, if he ever had any moments in or
throughout his life whether his religion brought forth some or any
anti-semitic comments on his behalf.

Or how he himself viewed the stark anti-semitism feeling still widely
present in our world...

I know of ACO touching briefly on this very (for lack of better word-
"touchy") subject...

Having a very close friend of mine being jewish, I very unfortunately know
all too well that anti-semitism is still unfortunately very much present in
our society...

Specially now with the new Intifada (uprising) in Israel and Palestine being
so destructive and savage, I've seen a mounting of antisemitism on people's
views....

Any thoughts ?
Sam Rouse
2003-07-27 08:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sébastien Smith
Post by Magic7Ball
If there was one conservation I could have had with Kubrick, it would have
pertained to his thoughts on God.
I agree on that previous comment.....
I wondered, especially since he was jewish, if he ever had any moments in or
throughout his life whether his religion brought forth some or any
anti-semitic comments on his behalf.
Or how he himself viewed the stark anti-semitism feeling still widely
present in our world...
I know of ACO touching briefly on this very (for lack of better word-
"touchy") subject...
Having a very close friend of mine being jewish, I very unfortunately know
all too well that anti-semitism is still unfortunately very much present in
our society...
Specially now with the new Intifada (uprising) in Israel and Palestine being
so destructive and savage, I've seen a mounting of antisemitism on people's
views....
Any thoughts ?
Nope. None whatsoever.

Is that a spot on your shirt? <smack>

Do you ever worry about non-anti-Semitism? <smack>

Ever had a bulldozer parked in yer crotch? <smack>

Ever wonder why Semitism (or non) has any more relevance than yer sexual
orientation? <sm - oops; missed>

Think people should by now at least be willing to stop hurting each other? Or
do you want to add more fuel to the fire? <serious questions>
dutch_angle
2003-07-28 22:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sébastien Smith
Specially now with the new Intifada (uprising) in Israel and Palestine being
so destructive and savage, I've seen a mounting of antisemitism on people's
views....
Any thoughts ?
No, a question.

How constructive and civilized do you consider The Lost Boys of Bush?

d.a.
Yann
2003-07-27 13:48:59 UTC
Permalink
BTW, do you know the difference between God and Stanley Kubrick ? God does
not think he is Stanley Kubrick...
Post by Magic7Ball
If there was one conservation I could have had with Kubrick, it would have
pertained to his thoughts on God.
Magic7Ball
2003-07-28 06:13:03 UTC
Permalink
" I will say that the god concept is at the heart of 2001 -
but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God.
I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions,
but I do believe that one can construct a an intriguing
*scientific* definition of God......."
....if that's of any help to you.
Good quote. Thanks...
Derrick Stuart
2003-08-18 23:44:38 UTC
Permalink
I've read a few books about 2001 in which it stated Kubrick used many
themes from mysticism, particularly kabbalah (the 4 stages of creation
corresponding with the flow of divine energy from "heavenly realm" to
the realm of man- there are four "episodes" in 2001; man in his most
primitive state, the moon, the Jupiter mission, Beyond the Infinite..)
& old alchemy (the black stone represented by the monolith is a major
alchemical symbol). He may have used these themes but whether or not
he actually believed in them doesn't really matter, does it? I fail to
see whether or not Kubrick believed in any sort of "God" is such a
major issue here- it just seems to me that you people are hiding
behind Kubrick's shadow to defend your own personal agendas. Keep in
mind, Kubrick himself said often that he wanted viwers of 2001 to use
their own intellect to forge their own interpretations- not just
follow his.
You might not be familiar with this. It's from the 1968 Playboy
interview, where Kubrick was asked if he agreed with the critics
who called '2001' a profoundly religious film.
" I will say that the god concept is at the heart of 2001 -
but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God.
I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions,
but I do believe that one can construct a an intriguing
*scientific* definition of God......."
....if that's of any help to you.
Jeff D.
AiRNESS
2003-08-20 19:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Two issues I agree 100% and that's the point of this topic...

1. >He may have used these themes but whether or not
Post by Derrick Stuart
he actually believed in them doesn't really matter, does it? I fail to
see whether or not Kubrick believed in any sort of "God" is such a
major issue here-
2. >it just seems to me that you people are hiding
Post by Derrick Stuart
behind Kubrick's shadow to defend your own personal agendas. Keep in
mind, Kubrick himself said often that he wanted viwers of 2001 to use
their own intellect to forge their own interpretations- not just
follow his.
Akis

Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-28 18:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Smith
was Kubrick catholic?
Kubrick was an atheist. He was of Jewish descent, but he was
not a Jew in the religious sense of the word (only in the quasi-racial
ethnic-cultural sense). There isn't even much evidence that he was
culturally Jewish: he liked to think of himself as being of Austrian
ancestry, and if he had a bar mitzvah that fact didn't creep into his
biographies.

As a first approximation to Kubrick's atheism, we have interview
testimony from Kubrick's brother-in-law and business associate, Jan
Harlan. The interview is at

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/300/300920p1.html

On page 2 (of 5 pages), Kubrick is asked, "What aspects of the [A.I.]
story most appealed to Stanley?" Harlan says, as part of his reply,
"He was not a religious man at all." That is truly an understatement.

The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview. There Kubrick was asked, "Would you agree with those
critics who call [2001] a profoundly religious film?" Kubrick
replied: "I would say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 . .
. I don't believe in any of Earth's monotheistic religions, but I do
believe that one can construct an intriguing SCIENTIFIC definition of
God, once you accept the fact that there are approximately 100 billion
stars in our galaxy alone . . . and that there are approximately 100
billion galaxies in just the visible universe. . . . It's reasonable
to assume that there must be, in fact, countless BILLIONS of planets
where biological life has arisen. . . . Now the sun is by no means an
old star, and its planets are mere children in cosmic age, so it seems
likely that there are billions of planets in the universe where
intelligent life . . . is hundreds of thousands of millions of years
in advance of us. . . . These [advanced intelligent] beings would BE
gods to the billions of less advanced races in the universe, just as
man would appear a god to an ant that somehow could comprehend man's
existence."

The "scientific definition" of God that Kubrick would implicitly
accept reduces God to a figure of speech, a metaphor. This God is not
literally God. Indeed, it differs from the Judeo-Christian God (and
from Allah) in three essential respects. First, whereas God is
perceived as a rational, self-conscious supernatural being, the
"scientific" god is not A being at all; it is an entire RACE of
beings. Second, whereas God is supernatural, the "scientific" God is
a natural being that has evolved over time, just as the human race has
evolved. The godlike alien race just happens to have been evolving
for a longer time, which puts it far ahead of us. Third, whereas God
is perceived as eternal, having no beginning and no end and having
preceded the universe, the "scientific" god didn't exist at first,
arrived after the universe began, started out (like man) as a lower
life form, and only gradually became metaphorically godlike. As a
related point, the individuals who constitute the godlike race are
mortal, capable of dying, whereas God is supposed to be immortal.

So you see, the "scientific" God that Kubrick would accept is a mere
figurative God, not the literal God of Judaism and Christianity.

As for Kubrick's saying "the God concept is at the heart of 2001,"
that is certainly true. 2001 is an allegory depicting Nietzsche's
magnum opus, THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA. Nietzsche, influenced by Darwin,
told the story of man's evolution from (1) ape to (2) lower man, the
believer who creates God by imagining his existence, to (3) higher
man, the nonbeliever who "kills" God by ceasing to believe, to (4)
overman, a mentally and morally superior race of men that Nietzsche
thought would evolve from higher man. God must die for overman to
evolve, because there can be only one Supreme Being. In 2001, Hal and
the spaceship Discovery jointly symbolize God, and Dave Bowman is
Zarathustra, the first of the higher man to slay God. Dave's
"killing" Hal symbolizes Zarathustra's killing God. This event
dramatizes Nietzsche's famous words, "God is dead!"

I was not the first to recognize 2001's Nietzsche theme. John Allen,
in his 1968 review in the Christian Science Monitor, said that "Mr.
Kubrick's tracing of mankind's development from prehistoric past to
post-fantastic future is the old theme of . . . ape-man-superman, to
put it into Nietzsche's terms." And Joseph Gelmis, writing Newsday in
1969, said that Kubrick "suggests that Nietzsche glimpsed the truth"
and that "in 2001 the evolutionary setups move from Leaky's man-ape to
the current species of homo sapiens to the newborn star-baby in a
cocoon - an infant angel, or superman." ("Overman" and "superman" are
alternative translations of Nietzsche's German word ubermensch, in
which uber = over and mensch = man. Overman is literally "over"
higher man in the evolutionary hierarchy.)

It shouldn't be necessary to add that thousands of viewers captured
the loud allegorical hint Kubrick delivered at the beginning of 2001,
where Richard Strauss's THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA launches the film.

Kubrick's willingness to allegorize a book that glorifies the death
of God is further evidence of his atheism. What few people realize,
and further testimony to Kubrick's atheism, is Kubrick's repeating the
death-of-God symbolism in a second film, A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
In a few months I plan to set up a website that will include several
essays, including one explaining in detail the allegorical structure
of A.I. For the moment, just a few details will have to suffice.
A.I.'s surface story uses symbols to sequentially tell two hidden
stories: (1) the Bible's Adam and Eve myth and (2) Dante's DIVINE
COMEDY, in which Dante has just finished (a) a period of earthly sin
and proceeds to travel through (b) the Dark Wood, (c) hell, "Dante's
Inferno," and (d) purgatory to get to (e) paradise.

In A.I., David is Adam, who becomes a surrogate for Dante on the
journey back to Paradise. Teddy is Eve and has a symbolic name, the
significance of which I will explain in due time; the name reveals
Teddy's identity (elsewhere hinted at by two scenes in which Teddy
performs sewing, a feminine task). Paradise is Mommy (Monica
Swinton), to whom David-Adam strives to return after being cast out of
Eden. The seven mysterious words Mommy speaks to imprint David with
love for her are obviously a coded message. (In John Baxter's
biography of Kubrick, we learn on page 215 that Kubrick was interested
in codes.) This message, the decoding procedure for which I will
present at the proper time, reveals Mommy's allegorical identity.

Steven Spielberg, who wrote the screenplay and completed the A.I.
project after Kubrick died, apparently was not privy to the allegory:
Kubrick was highly secretive (he never revealed to anyone the presence
of allegories in 2001). Spielberg said in an interview that there was
"no scenario of A.I. to speak of, only myriads of notes and thoughts
gathered in a box . . . and that I manipulated as if I were an
archaeologist." So it isn't Spielberg's fault that he went astray in
two places, including the ending. His most important deviation from
Kubrick's intended course was putting hell (the Flesh Fair) ahead of
earthly sin (Rouge City). Kubrick clearly intended to have the Rouge
City episode precede the Flesh Fair episode. (That would have
required revising the plot to put sin before hell, but revision would
not be difficult.)

The basic outline of A.I.'s Adam allegory was first discovered by Jon
Bastian, who has presented it in a web essay. Bastian's web article
"A.I. in Depth" can be found at

http://www.filmmonthly.com/Behind/behind.html

Although Bastian misses perhaps 90 percent of A.I.'s symbolism and
misinterprets some of the remaining symbols (he thinks Rouge City is
part of hell), his thesis is nevertheless basically correct. He is
correct, for example, in theorizing that David's 2000 years submerged
in the Atlantic Ocean symbolize purgatory, although he misses the
details. In Catholicism, purgatory is a place where sinners spend a
long but finite period of time being cleansed of their sins before
going on to heaven. One of the best mediums for cleansing, and easily
the most popular, is water. And 2000 years is a long but finite
period of time. David's 2000 years of being "washed" by the waters of
the Atlantic is Adam-Dante's cleansing in purgatory.

Purgatory, meanwhile, is where Kubrick kills God a second time. In
A.I. the "mechas" (robots) symbolize humans, and the humans symbolize
divinity. Professor Hobby, who creates David (Adam), symbolizes God,
who created Adam. During the 2000 years David spends underwater, the
human race dies, destroyed by a new ice age. Professor Hobby, God,
dies with the rest of divinity during this period.

Thus does Kubrick symbolize for a second time the death of God. Yes,
Kubrick was an atheist.

In addition to killing God a second time, A.I. provides an
interesting postscript to Kubrick's antireligious attitude. In Rouge
City, David and Gigolo Joe stand outside a chapel named Our Lady of
the Immaculate Heart. Joe, who is a gigolo, mentions that he picks up
a lot of business from women coming out of the chapel. This remark
could be interpreted as conveying disrespect for those who attend
church.

And then there is the chapel's name, Our Lady of the Immaculate
Heart. This name lampoons three Catholic phrases:

1. "Our Lady of _______" is the name of many (most?) Catholic
churches. For example, in Lake Wobegon, the Catholic Church is Our
Lady of Perpetual Responsibility.

2. "Immaculate" comes from "immaculate conception," the Catholic
doctrine holding that the Virgin Mary was conceived free from original
sin. (Don't make the common mistake of confusing the immaculate
conception with the virgin birth.)

3. "Heart" comes from "Sacred Heart," the name of many Catholic
schools and churches.

Once again we see Kubrick poking fun at religion.
dutch_angle
2003-07-28 22:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
That's not evidence. It is merely one statement, made in a specific
era, on a specific day, within a specific context. You mistake your
interpretation for "evidence".
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
So you see, the "scientific" God that Kubrick would accept is a mere
figurative God, not the literal God of Judaism and Christianity.
But a God after all.
His "God concept" really sounds religious to me.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Dave's "killing" Hal symbolizes Zarathustra's killing God. This event
dramatizes Nietzsche's famous words, "God is dead!"
Or is it man killing the ultimate of it's techtools?
Could this event also "symbolize" (aaargghhh) man's deep urge to
return to God?
Dave is finally shown a glimpse of the face of God and: "it's full of
stars!"
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
I was not the first to recognize 2001's Nietzsche theme.
LOL!
Glad you mention that.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
It shouldn't be necessary to add that thousands of viewers captured
the loud allegorical hint Kubrick delivered at the beginning of 2001,
where Richard Strauss's THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA launches the film.
It also shouldn't be necessary to add that Kubrick wasn't the kind of
filmmaker that would just repeat Strauss's THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA and
that he really likes irony a lot. With someone like Kubrick, 1+1
equals 3.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Kubrick's willingness to allegorize a book that glorifies the death
of God is further evidence of his atheism.
Is that what Kubrick did with 2001? Just allogorize a book?
Sounds like a thin cinematic concept to me.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
What few people realize,
and further testimony to Kubrick's atheism, is Kubrick's repeating the
death-of-God symbolism in a second film, A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
Small detail: he didn't direct A.I.
But you do know that, don't you? (yes, you do)
Be careful when you pretend to come up with further "testimony".
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
In a few months I plan to set up a website that will include several
essays, including one explaining in detail the allegorical structure
of A.I.
So with Spielberg's film, you going to deliver more final testimony
and/or evidence of Kubrick's so-called atheism, based on
interpretations of allegories that he refused to delve into?
Are you going to demystify The Mystery?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
For the moment, just a few details will have to suffice.
A.I.'s surface story uses symbols to sequentially tell two hidden
stories: (1) the Bible's Adam and Eve myth and (2) Dante's DIVINE
COMEDY, in which Dante has just finished (a) a period of earthly sin
and proceeds to travel through (b) the Dark Wood, (c) hell, "Dante's
Inferno," and (d) purgatory to get to (e) paradise.
Sounds like good old standard religious mumbo-jumbo.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Steven Spielberg, who wrote the screenplay and completed the A.I.
Kubrick was highly secretive (he never revealed to anyone the presence
of allegories in 2001).
That's because there are no allegories in 2001.
If I follow your reasoning, I would call that evidence; Kubrick never
said so, there appearantly seems no interview to back you up.
So, since there are no allegories in 2001, there's no "God is
dead"-allegory.
"Oh my God! It's full of stars!"
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
So it isn't Spielberg's fault that he went astray in
two places, including the ending.
He also said he was left with a brilliant first and final act.
The ending was Kubrick's, wasn't it?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Although Bastian misses perhaps 90 percent of A.I.'s symbolism and
misinterprets some of the remaining symbols (he thinks Rouge City is
part of hell),
Which sounds like a reasonable interpretation.
No interpretation can reach the magic of cinema, but nevertheless.
It's just "another" interpretation.
(any film that can be "explained" by it's supposed symbolism and
adaptation of allegories, is mediocre cinema, below average, dreadful,
boring)
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
David's 2000 years of being "washed" by the waters of
the Atlantic is Adam-Dante's cleansing in purgatory.
Which is all highly religious. Standard stuff.
Where's Kubrick, the atheist, in all of this?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Purgatory, meanwhile, is where Kubrick kills God a second time. In
A.I. the "mechas" (robots) symbolize humans, and the humans symbolize
divinity. Professor Hobby, who creates David (Adam), symbolizes God,
who created Adam.
Or the mechas are just mechas, the humans just humans.
Professor Hobby is just a sad human being that wants to play God.
Because he experiences human grief over the death of his human child.
So he creates the artificial image of his dead son David.
And his David enters artifarti heaven at the end.
Sounds like standard Spielberg to me.
"Oh my God! It's full of stars!" / "Come away, O human child!"
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
During the 2000 years David spends underwater, the
human race dies, destroyed by a new ice age.
Or is it all mecha dream, mecha legend, mecha myth, mecha religion?
"Oh my God! It's full of Mecha's!"
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Professor Hobby, God,
dies with the rest of divinity during this period.
That's because he ain't God, is he? Just a human sucker after all.
Wouldn't call that a symbol. It's cinema at it's very worst.
Transparent Predictable Bullshit.
Or rather, that's what you make of it.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Thus does Kubrick symbolize for a second time the death of God. Yes,
Kubrick was an atheist.
LOL!
Thus Spielberg, not Kubrick, tells the fairy tale story of how the
human professor Hobby, someone who has played for God, died and his
memory no longer seems to exist, in David's hardware.
But hell no, Kubrick and Spielberg are true believers: they play for
God; they create an afterlife for David, their Adam. Adam is allowed
to re-enter paradise. God gives him a second chance.
God Has Died, God Is Resurrected, God Is Alive!
The mecha's, you see, "symbolize" God. The New God. Kubrick's God.
Kubrick was a believer! Or rather, so did Spielberg belief. Or did he?
Bananas!
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Once again we see Kubrick poking fun at religion.
Or was it Spielberg?

Or did Kubrick try to warn "us" for the "death" of God and the dire
consequences for mankind?

You see, I don't see any "evidence" for Kubrick's atheism at all.
Only your own beliefs, which is fine. Enjoy it.

I think Kubrick highly respected religion.
I would call 2001 the cinematic evidence for that.
And perhaps, perhaps, had he directed A.I., it would be another proof
for that.

If you look at how Kubrick focussed more and more on human beings,
with the testament of EWS as a final chapter, I think he somehow was a
believer.

God is dead? That is up to you.
No hard feelings, I'm just poking fun at your evidence and testimony.


d.a. (atheist)
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-29 03:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
That's not evidence. It is merely one statement, made in a specific
era, on a specific day, within a specific context. You mistake your
interpretation for "evidence".
Not evidence? You are the epitome of a closed mind. Kubrick says, "I
do not believe in any of the earth's monotheistic religions." Then he
says that the "God" he could recognize is a FIGURATIVE God, not a
supernatural being but an alien race of highly evolved natural beings.
But you reply that he only thought that way "on a specific day."
Where's your evidence? You also say (below), "sounds religious to
me." By putting your ignorance of religion on display, you refute
yourself.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
So you see, the "scientific" God that Kubrick would accept is a mere
figurative God, not the literal God of Judaism and Christianity.
But a God after all.
His "God concept" really sounds religious to me.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Dave's "killing" Hal symbolizes Zarathustra's killing God. This event
dramatizes Nietzsche's famous words, "God is dead!"
Or is it man killing the ultimate of it's techtools?
Now you're parroting Rod Munday and Modemac. Where in 2001 does
Kubrick develop the theme that man's tools are harmful and need to be
overcome? I see the opposite. Bowman wins his battle with Hal by
using tools. He contrives a way to use mechanical features of both
the pod and the airlock to rescue himself. Then he uses a simple
mechanical device, the brain shutoff key, to kill Hal. Nor does he
forsake mechanical assistance after that. He proceeds to fly the
remaining mechanical space pod in pursuit of the Jupiter monolith; he
uses a mechanical space suit, which keeps him alive, in the process.
Later, in the hotel room, he uses a mechanical toilet and a mechanical
sink (maybe even the tub) for sanitary purposes, lives in a
mechanically temperature-controlled room, and uses eating utensils to
eat food that presumably was prepared with the assistance of
mechanical devices rather than magic.

[snip]
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
It shouldn't be necessary to add that thousands of viewers captured
the loud allegorical hint Kubrick delivered at the beginning of 2001,
where Richard Strauss's THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA launches the film.
It also shouldn't be necessary to add that Kubrick wasn't the kind of
filmmaker that would just repeat Strauss's THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA and
that he really likes irony a lot. With someone like Kubrick, 1+1
equals 3.
You're right. He didn't "just repeat" the Strauss music. He was
making a point, an easy point to grasp that you find too slippery.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Kubrick's willingness to allegorize a book that glorifies the death
of God is further evidence of his atheism.
Is that what Kubrick did with 2001? Just allogorize a book?
Sounds like a thin cinematic concept to me.
If you consider allegory a "thin concept," I'd say that speaks volumes
about your judgment
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
What few people realize,
and further testimony to Kubrick's atheism, is Kubrick's repeating the
death-of-God symbolism in a second film, A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
Small detail: he didn't direct A.I.
Of course he didn't. Everyone knows that. That's why I didn't bother
to mention it. If you think knowing that Kubrick didn't direct A.I.
displays wisdom, take a bow.

[snip]
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
For the moment, just a few details will have to suffice.
A.I.'s surface story uses symbols to sequentially tell two hidden
stories: (1) the Bible's Adam and Eve myth and (2) Dante's DIVINE
COMEDY, in which Dante has just finished (a) a period of earthly sin
and proceeds to travel through (b) the Dark Wood, (c) hell, "Dante's
Inferno," and (d) purgatory to get to (e) paradise.
Sounds like good old standard religious mumbo-jumbo.
The Adam and Eve myth and Dante's DIVINE COMEDY do indeed contain
religious mumbo-jumbo, but they are also important works of
literature. To not only allegorize them but to combine them in a
single allegory is a significant achievement, something few if any
other directors could pull off.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Steven Spielberg, who wrote the screenplay and completed the A.I.
Kubrick was highly secretive (he never revealed to anyone the presence
of allegories in 2001).
That's because there are no allegories in 2001.
If I follow your reasoning, I would call that evidence; Kubrick never
said so, there appearantly seems no interview to back you up.
So, since there are no allegories in 2001, there's no "God is
dead"-allegory.
The evidence is contained in a book I wrote. You would undoubtedly
reject that evidence, because you have a closed mind. Interviews are
not the only form of evidence. In fact, if I read you correctly in
your initial comment, you don't put any stock in interview evidence.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
So it isn't Spielberg's fault that he went astray in
two places, including the ending.
He also said he was left with a brilliant first and final act.
The ending was Kubrick's, wasn't it?
It certainly was not. Kubrick's religious orientation makes it clear
that he had no intention of symbolizine paradise/heaven as a reality.
His point was going to be that paradise isn't real. We don't know if
he had worked out all the details of his ending. But the best
evidence available suggests that he was going to have Mommy recreated
not as a real living person but as a hologram; the real Mommy would
NOT come back to life. Furthermore, she was going to be an alcoholic,
which is close to saying that heaven is really hell. Finally, she was
going to fade away before David's eyes. Possibly Kubrick intended
that David reach out to hug her only to have his arms close on empty
space, just as his hands did when they tried to grasp the Blue Fairy
hologram at Dr. Know's shop. Realizing that Mommy wasn't real, David
might have been intended to exclaim, "She [paradise] isn't real!"
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Although Bastian misses perhaps 90 percent of A.I.'s symbolism and
misinterprets some of the remaining symbols (he thinks Rouge City is
part of hell),
Which sounds like a reasonable interpretation.
I shake my head in despair. Rouge City = hell is a "reasonable" idea
to you? Rouge City is a pleasure palace. It is a place where people
go to sin, not to be punished for their sins. The punishment occurs
at the Flesh Fair.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
David's 2000 years of being "washed" by the waters of
the Atlantic is Adam-Dante's cleansing in purgatory.
Which is all highly religious. Standard stuff.
Where's Kubrick, the atheist, in all of this?
Who suggested that Kubrick's atheism permeates A.I.? I made the point
that, in A.I., Kubrick killed God for a second time. In A.I. he
killed God when he arranged for Professor Hobby (God)and all the rest
of the human race (divinity), including Mommy (paradise), to die.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Purgatory, meanwhile, is where Kubrick kills God a second time. In
A.I. the "mechas" (robots) symbolize humans, and the humans symbolize
divinity. Professor Hobby, who creates David (Adam), symbolizes God,
who created Adam.
Or the mechas are just mechas, the humans just humans.
Professor Hobby is just a sad human being that wants to play God.
Well, that's your opinion, and I see no point in debating it. Your
mind is closed to any evidence. It you can't see the two analogies
between David's sojourn under the Atlantic and purgatory, you simply
lack the ability to recognize analogy.
Post by dutch_angle
Because he experiences human grief over the death of his human child.
So he creates the artificial image of his dead son David.
True, but that's the SURFACE story. In allegory, the surface story
metaphorically tells a hidden story. The surface story reason for
Hobby's creating David has no bearing on whether David symbolizes Adam
or Hobby symbolizes God.
Post by dutch_angle
And his David enters artifarti heaven at the end.
Sounds like standard Spielberg to me.
It IS standard Spielberg. It is not what Kubrick had in mind.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
During the 2000 years David spends underwater, the
human race dies, destroyed by a new ice age.
Or is it all mecha dream, mecha legend, mecha myth, mecha religion?
"Oh my God! It's full of Mecha's!"
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Professor Hobby, God,
dies with the rest of divinity during this period.
That's because he ain't God, is he? Just a human sucker after all.
Wouldn't call that a symbol. It's cinema at it's very worst.
Transparent Predictable Bullshit.
Your powers of argumentation are lacking. "Bullshit" isn't a
convincing argument.
dutch_angle
2003-07-29 14:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
That's not evidence. It is merely one statement, made in a specific
era, on a specific day, within a specific context. You mistake your
interpretation for "evidence".
Not evidence? You are the epitome of a closed mind.
Eureka, I have a mind. There's hope.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Kubrick says, "I
do not believe in any of the earth's monotheistic religions."
So what?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Then he says that the "God" he could recognize is a FIGURATIVE God, not a
supernatural being but an alien race of highly evolved natural beings.
Ah, so he just plays with the interpretation of "God".
Where's the atheist in Kubrick?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
But you reply that he only thought that way "on a specific day."
Where's your evidence?
You provided the "evidence"; playboy interview.
Like many silly biographers tend to do, you pidgeonhole Kubrick into
one way of thinking, just because of what he has said in an interview.
Even worse, you come up with conclusions about Kubrick's way of
thinking, which are nothing more than your own interpretations.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
Or is it man killing the ultimate of it's techtools?
Where in 2001 does
Kubrick develop the theme that man's tools are harmful and need to be
overcome?
Didn't speak of a "theme", but one could think of the bone used as a
killing weapon, at the very beginning, aped by Bowman to kill HAL. Of
course, this is only one way to look at it.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
I see the opposite. Bowman wins his battle with Hal by
using tools. He contrives a way to use mechanical features of both
the pod and the airlock to rescue himself. Then he uses a simple
mechanical device, the brain shutoff key, to kill Hal.
...which is the "harmful" tool to overcome...
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Nor does he
forsake mechanical assistance after that. He proceeds to fly the
remaining mechanical space pod in pursuit of the Jupiter monolith; he
uses a mechanical space suit, which keeps him alive, in the process.
Later, in the hotel room, he uses a mechanical toilet and a mechanical
sink (maybe even the tub) for sanitary purposes, lives in a
mechanically temperature-controlled room, and uses eating utensils to
eat food that presumably was prepared with the assistance of
mechanical devices rather than magic.
Yes and the bubble he ends up in, of course, is also a mechanical
device?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Kubrick's willingness to allegorize a book that glorifies the death
of God is further evidence of his atheism.
Is that what Kubrick did with 2001? Just allogorize a book?
Sounds like a thin cinematic concept to me.
If you consider allegory a "thin concept," I'd say that speaks volumes
about your judgment
You really are a bad reader.
Didn't say "allegory" on itself is a thin concept, did I? (try again!)
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The Adam and Eve myth and Dante's DIVINE COMEDY do indeed contain
religious mumbo-jumbo, but they are also important works of
literature. To not only allegorize them but to combine them in a
single allegory is a significant achievement, something few if any
other directors could pull off.
The way you describe it, anyone could have pulled that off.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
That's because there are no allegories in 2001.
The evidence is contained in a book I wrote.
That's evidence that you think there are allegories in 2001.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
In fact, if I read you correctly in
your initial comment, you don't put any stock in interview evidence.
Again, you are a bad reader.
Where you see "evidence" in a Kubrick statement during an interview
regarding one of his films, I just see one statement, not evidence.
You are playing God over Kubrick. The world must be waiting for you.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
He also said he was left with a brilliant first and final act.
The ending was Kubrick's, wasn't it?
It certainly was not. Kubrick's religious orientation makes it clear
that he had no intention of symbolizine paradise/heaven as a reality.
There wasn't any religious orientation.
There was a first and final act. There were storyboards. Lots of
ideas. Etc.
Perhaps, he had a fairytale orientation, who knows?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
His point was going to be that paradise isn't real.
No, that's your point.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
We don't know if
he had worked out all the details of his ending. But the best
evidence available suggests that he was going to have Mommy recreated
not as a real living person but as a hologram; the real Mommy would
NOT come back to life.
And is Spielberg's Monica a real living person?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Furthermore, she was going to be an alcoholic,
which is close to saying that heaven is really hell.
LOL, praise God I have a "closed" mind!
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Finally, she was going to fade away before David's eyes.
So "hell" fades away? We're left with paradise?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Possibly Kubrick intended
that David reach out to hug her only to have his arms close on empty
space, just as his hands did when they tried to grasp the Blue Fairy
hologram at Dr. Know's shop. Realizing that Mommy wasn't real, David
might have been intended to exclaim, "She [paradise] isn't real!"
He "might"? He "might"? Doesn't sound like you. Where's the evidence?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Although Bastian misses perhaps 90 percent of A.I.'s symbolism and
misinterprets some of the remaining symbols (he thinks Rouge City is
part of hell),
Which sounds like a reasonable interpretation.
I shake my head in despair. Rouge City = hell is a "reasonable" idea
to you? Rouge City is a pleasure palace. It is a place where people
go to sin, not to be punished for their sins. The punishment occurs
at the Flesh Fair.
I shake my closed mind in despair.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
David's 2000 years of being "washed" by the waters of
the Atlantic is Adam-Dante's cleansing in purgatory.
Which is all highly religious. Standard stuff.
Where's Kubrick, the atheist, in all of this?
Who suggested that Kubrick's atheism permeates A.I.? I made the point
that, in A.I., Kubrick killed God for a second time.
He never did. You let him do that.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
In A.I. he killed God when he arranged for Professor Hobby (God)and all the
rest of the human race (divinity), including Mommy (paradise), to die.
But Hobby ain't God. Only a silly mind could produce that.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
Or the mechas are just mechas, the humans just humans.
Professor Hobby is just a sad human being that wants to play God.
Well, that's your opinion, and I see no point in debating it.
You do.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Your mind is closed to any evidence. It you can't see the two analogies
between David's sojourn under the Atlantic and purgatory, you simply
lack the ability to recognize analogy.
Perhaps.
And you overestimate your own interpretation and knowledge on Kubrick.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
Because he experiences human grief over the death of his human child.
So he creates the artificial image of his dead son David.
True, but that's the SURFACE story. In allegory, the surface story
metaphorically tells a hidden story.
In your interpretation there is no hidden story.
A.I., in your hands, becomes a surface story directed by an atheist,
who's goal it was to kill God a second time.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The surface story reason for
Hobby's creating David has no bearing on whether David symbolizes Adam
or Hobby symbolizes God.
Of course not. It is only your interpretation and your guessing at the
film's hidden story. Bye evidence.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
And his David enters artifarti heaven at the end.
Sounds like standard Spielberg to me.
It IS standard Spielberg. It is not what Kubrick had in mind.
But he did seem to have in mind letting Spielberg direct the film, or
so the "evidence" makes us believe. So Kubrick didn't seem to have in
mind killing God a second time?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by dutch_angle
That's because he ain't God, is he? Just a human sucker after all.
Wouldn't call that a symbol. It's cinema at it's very worst.
Transparent Predictable Bullshit.
Your powers of argumentation are lacking. "Bullshit" isn't a
convincing argument.
It wasn't meant as an argument.
It's just my verdict over your interpretations.

d.a.
JSpringer0953
2003-07-30 20:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Points to ponder from Summa Theologica

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries
be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means
that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no
evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not
exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted
for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything
we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did
not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is
nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human
reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and
evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now
whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion
except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a
thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the
reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be
reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of
actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is
potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it
is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and
potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is
actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously
potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in
the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move
itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If
that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must
needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot
go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and,
consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch
as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because
it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first
mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense
we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither
is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of
itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in
efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all
efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate
cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the
intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to
take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in
efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first
efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate
efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to
admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find
in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to
be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not
to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is
possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible
not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if
this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that
which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing.
Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been
impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would
be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely
possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.
But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not.
Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their
necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient
causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of
itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing
in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings
there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more"
and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in
their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be
hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that
there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and,
consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are
greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now
the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is
the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be
something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every
other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things
which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is
evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to
obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but
designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot
move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge
and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore
some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their
end; and this being we call God.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the
highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His
omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is
part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and
out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the
direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced
back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must
also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since
these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of
defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle,
as was shown in the body of the Article.
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-31 12:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by JSpringer0953
Points to ponder from Summa Theologica
I should have proofread before posting. St. Thomas's last name is spelled Aquinas.
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-29 16:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."

In other words, you prefer to manufacture facts out of whole cloth.
To you, the only genuine source of truth is faith. And so, you
assert, as a matter of personal faith, that Kubrick believed in some
implicitly supernatural or metaphysical entity, power, or reality.

What does your faith tell you this might have been? Let's consider
the possibilities:

1. God. That possibility can be ruled out by Kubrick's Playboy
interview statement. For that matter, you yourself seem to be highly
skeptical that God is what he "believed."

2. A pantheon of gods, akin to the Greek or Hindu gods. The idea that
Kubrick believed in numerous gods is so ridiculous, and so at variance
with his Playboy statement, that I find it hard to believe that even
you (one of the most credulous people on this forum) could be
suggesting that.

3. A metaphysical "essence" within physical reality, similar
(identical?) to Hegel's Spirit or Spinoza's essence or the essence
believed in by pantheists. (Hegel's thought was actually a form of
pantheism, as was Spinoza's, although Spinoza could have been an
atheist who used ambiguous language to conceal his atheism.)

4. A non-self-conscious metaphysical "force" (or whatever) with which
humans, possibly with the aid of proper ritual or meditation, can
"commune" to experience the religous "ecstasy" (a technical term)
experienced by mystics, particularly oriental mystics. This ecstasy
typically includes visual or auditory stimulation (believed by
psychologists and physiologists to be induced by biochemical activity
in the brain and to probably involve psychologically induced serotonin
production). Are you suggesting that Kubrick was a mystic and
experienced mystical communion with your "something beyond the mere
physical"? Where is your evidence? Oh, pardon, I forgot: you know
this, if it is what you have in mind, on the basis of faith, which is
the only evidence you need.

5. Natural magic, a supernatural force that is not controlled by any
rational being or entity but that randomly, or perhaps even
systematically, causes the laws of nature to be suspended every now
and then. Maybe you think Kubrick believed a full moon could cause
certain types of people, or just random people, to turn into
werewolves and then back into humans? Maybe you think Kubrick
believed that broken mirrors or walking under a ladder or having a
hotel room on the 13th floor or having a black cat cross his path
could cause bad luck through mysterious, magical supernatural forces.
Where is your evidence he might have believed any of these things?

7. Humanly performed magic, either white magic or black magic,
and possibly including voodoo magic of the type that involves sticking
needles into effigies or voodoo dolls.

8. Astrology. Do you think Kubrick might have been taken in by
this superstition?

9. Fortune telling, palm readings, and related psychic
clairvoyance.

10. Ghosts, elves, brownies, goblins, gremlins, evil spirits
demons, witches, the tooth fairy, genies, trolls, or other
supernatural beings. Or else the quasi-religion, spiritualism, which
is closely related to the idea of ghosts.

11. Transmigration of souls, as in Hinduism.

12. A metaphysical dialectical force that directs and controls the
course of history, as in Hegelian and Marxian dialectics.

13. A supernatural power through which amulets, talismans, and
rituals can ward off bad luck.

14. Something else so cockeyed foolish that you're ashamed so say
what it is but that you nevertheless think Kubrick might have
"believed."


Your suggestion that Kubrick "believed" one or more of these
things is insulting to Kubrick and too his memory. Hang your head in
shame.
Wheat's assertion that the magazine interview of
'68 is final, irrevocable proof of Stanley's atheism is foolish because SK
did a number of other interviews between the late '60s and his death.
Let's see if I understand you. After expressing his atheism in words
no intelligent person could misinterpret, Kubrick "did a number of
other interviews." Without regard for the content of these
interviews, you are asserting that the mere fact that he was
interviewed contradicts (or at least weakens) what he said in the
Playboy interview.

This is the sort of reasoning we often see in your posts. You seem to
have an ego-driven desire for attention, and you don't much care what
you say to get it. As someone else once said, you like to engage in
self-immolation.

[snip]
Wordsmith :)
JSpringer0953
2003-07-29 18:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: religion
10. Ghosts, elves, brownies, goblins, gremlins, evil spirits
demons, witches, the tooth fairy, genies, trolls, or other
supernatural beings. Or else the quasi-religion, spiritualism, which
is closely related to the idea of ghosts.
You think brownies are FUNNY Leonard? Do you think they're not real? I got news
for you, buster: They are VERY real and they are a menace to society:

http://www.girlguiding.org.uk/members/brownies/

JOn
Wordsmith
2003-07-30 01:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."
In other words, you prefer to manufacture facts out of whole cloth.
To you, the only genuine source of truth is faith. And so, you
assert, as a matter of personal faith, that Kubrick believed in some
implicitly supernatural or metaphysical entity, power, or reality.
What does your faith tell you this might have been? Let's consider
1. God. That possibility can be ruled out by Kubrick's Playboy
interview statement. For that matter, you yourself seem to be highly
skeptical that God is what he "believed."
2. A pantheon of gods, akin to the Greek or Hindu gods. The idea that
Kubrick believed in numerous gods is so ridiculous, and so at variance
with his Playboy statement, that I find it hard to believe that even
you (one of the most credulous people on this forum) could be
suggesting that.
3. A metaphysical "essence" within physical reality, similar
(identical?) to Hegel's Spirit or Spinoza's essence or the essence
believed in by pantheists. (Hegel's thought was actually a form of
pantheism, as was Spinoza's, although Spinoza could have been an
atheist who used ambiguous language to conceal his atheism.)
4. A non-self-conscious metaphysical "force" (or whatever) with which
humans, possibly with the aid of proper ritual or meditation, can
"commune" to experience the religous "ecstasy" (a technical term)
experienced by mystics, particularly oriental mystics. This ecstasy
typically includes visual or auditory stimulation (believed by
psychologists and physiologists to be induced by biochemical activity
in the brain and to probably involve psychologically induced serotonin
production). Are you suggesting that Kubrick was a mystic and
experienced mystical communion with your "something beyond the mere
physical"? Where is your evidence? Oh, pardon, I forgot: you know
this, if it is what you have in mind, on the basis of faith, which is
the only evidence you need.
5. Natural magic, a supernatural force that is not controlled by any
rational being or entity but that randomly, or perhaps even
systematically, causes the laws of nature to be suspended every now
and then. Maybe you think Kubrick believed a full moon could cause
certain types of people, or just random people, to turn into
werewolves and then back into humans? Maybe you think Kubrick
believed that broken mirrors or walking under a ladder or having a
hotel room on the 13th floor or having a black cat cross his path
could cause bad luck through mysterious, magical supernatural forces.
Where is your evidence he might have believed any of these things?
7. Humanly performed magic, either white magic or black magic,
and possibly including voodoo magic of the type that involves sticking
needles into effigies or voodoo dolls.
8. Astrology. Do you think Kubrick might have been taken in by
this superstition?
9. Fortune telling, palm readings, and related psychic
clairvoyance.
10. Ghosts, elves, brownies, goblins, gremlins, evil spirits
demons, witches, the tooth fairy, genies, trolls, or other
supernatural beings. Or else the quasi-religion, spiritualism, which
is closely related to the idea of ghosts.
11. Transmigration of souls, as in Hinduism.
12. A metaphysical dialectical force that directs and controls the
course of history, as in Hegelian and Marxian dialectics.
13. A supernatural power through which amulets, talismans, and
rituals can ward off bad luck.
14. Something else so cockeyed foolish that you're ashamed so say
what it is but that you nevertheless think Kubrick might have
"believed."
Your suggestion that Kubrick "believed" one or more of these
things is insulting to Kubrick and too his memory. Hang your head in
shame.
Wheat's assertion that the magazine interview of
'68 is final, irrevocable proof of Stanley's atheism is foolish because SK
did a number of other interviews between the late '60s and his death.
Let's see if I understand you. After expressing his atheism in words
no intelligent person could misinterpret, Kubrick "did a number of
other interviews." Without regard for the content of these
interviews, you are asserting that the mere fact that he was
interviewed contradicts (or at least weakens) what he said in the
Playboy interview.
So you're saying he couldn't have modified his opinion?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
This is the sort of reasoning we often see in your posts. You seem to
have an ego-driven desire for attention, and you don't much care what
you say to get it. As someone else once said, you like to engage in
self-immolation.
Musta missed that post.

Wordsmith :)
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
[snip]
Wordsmith :)
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-30 13:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."
[snip]
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Wheat's assertion that the magazine interview of
'68 is final, irrevocable proof of Stanley's atheism is foolish because SK
did a number of other interviews between the late '60s and his death.
Let's see if I understand you. After expressing his atheism in words
no intelligent person could misinterpret, Kubrick "did a number of
other interviews." Without regard for the content of these
interviews, you are asserting that the mere fact that he was
interviewed contradicts (or at least weakens) what he said in the
Playboy interview.
So you're saying he couldn't have modified his opinion?
I'm saying that the burden of proof is on you to show that he DID
modify his opinion. You obviously think that, by observing that
Kubrick gave other interviews after giving the one in which he
expressed his atheism, you have proven that Kubrick changed his mind.
How can a person reach maturity, or even reach high school age,
without having a clue as to what constitutes evidence? If you wish to
produce evidence that is based on interviews, you must quote from
those interviews. And the quotes must support your position.
Offering speculation as evidence is totally naive.
Wordsmith
2003-07-30 17:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."
[snip]
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Wheat's assertion that the magazine interview of
'68 is final, irrevocable proof of Stanley's atheism is foolish because SK
did a number of other interviews between the late '60s and his death.
Let's see if I understand you. After expressing his atheism in words
no intelligent person could misinterpret, Kubrick "did a number of
other interviews." Without regard for the content of these
interviews, you are asserting that the mere fact that he was
interviewed contradicts (or at least weakens) what he said in the
Playboy interview.
So you're saying he couldn't have modified his opinion?
I'm saying that the burden of proof is on you to show that he DID
modify his opinion. You obviously think that, by observing that
Kubrick gave other interviews after giving the one in which he
expressed his atheism, you have proven that Kubrick changed his mind.
How can a person reach maturity, or even reach high school age,
without having a clue as to what constitutes evidence? If you wish to
produce evidence that is based on interviews, you must quote from
those interviews. And the quotes must support your position.
Offering speculation as evidence is totally naive.
Kubrick was a much more open minded person than you, as is obvious.

W :)
Wordsmith
2003-07-30 02:26:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."
I don't have copy of the Ciment book, but I seem to recall a piece in it
that SK, musing about the ideas in *The Shining*, said somthing about
if we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death is not the end of our existence.
Proof enough?

Why did you turn my adverb into an adjective? Adverbs modify verbs. Adjectives
modify nouns. When I said "unconventionally," I meant just that. You love
reconfiguring statements. Such reveals your shallow thoughts.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
In other words, you prefer to manufacture facts out of whole cloth.
To you, the only genuine source of truth is faith. And so, you
assert, as a matter of personal faith, that Kubrick believed in some
implicitly supernatural or metaphysical entity, power, or reality.
How are you so sure what SK felt in his heart? Are you that smitten
with empiricism? And it's telling you didn't comment on my speculation
on what he may have been thinking on his death bed. That frightens you,
doesn't it?

Wordsmith :)
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
What does your faith tell you this might have been? Let's consider
1. God. That possibility can be ruled out by Kubrick's Playboy
interview statement. For that matter, you yourself seem to be highly
skeptical that God is what he "believed."
2. A pantheon of gods, akin to the Greek or Hindu gods. The idea that
Kubrick believed in numerous gods is so ridiculous, and so at variance
with his Playboy statement, that I find it hard to believe that even
you (one of the most credulous people on this forum) could be
suggesting that.
3. A metaphysical "essence" within physical reality, similar
(identical?) to Hegel's Spirit or Spinoza's essence or the essence
believed in by pantheists. (Hegel's thought was actually a form of
pantheism, as was Spinoza's, although Spinoza could have been an
atheist who used ambiguous language to conceal his atheism.)
4. A non-self-conscious metaphysical "force" (or whatever) with which
humans, possibly with the aid of proper ritual or meditation, can
"commune" to experience the religous "ecstasy" (a technical term)
experienced by mystics, particularly oriental mystics. This ecstasy
typically includes visual or auditory stimulation (believed by
psychologists and physiologists to be induced by biochemical activity
in the brain and to probably involve psychologically induced serotonin
production). Are you suggesting that Kubrick was a mystic and
experienced mystical communion with your "something beyond the mere
physical"? Where is your evidence? Oh, pardon, I forgot: you know
this, if it is what you have in mind, on the basis of faith, which is
the only evidence you need.
5. Natural magic, a supernatural force that is not controlled by any
rational being or entity but that randomly, or perhaps even
systematically, causes the laws of nature to be suspended every now
and then. Maybe you think Kubrick believed a full moon could cause
certain types of people, or just random people, to turn into
werewolves and then back into humans? Maybe you think Kubrick
believed that broken mirrors or walking under a ladder or having a
hotel room on the 13th floor or having a black cat cross his path
could cause bad luck through mysterious, magical supernatural forces.
Where is your evidence he might have believed any of these things?
7. Humanly performed magic, either white magic or black magic,
and possibly including voodoo magic of the type that involves sticking
needles into effigies or voodoo dolls.
8. Astrology. Do you think Kubrick might have been taken in by
this superstition?
9. Fortune telling, palm readings, and related psychic
clairvoyance.
10. Ghosts, elves, brownies, goblins, gremlins, evil spirits
demons, witches, the tooth fairy, genies, trolls, or other
supernatural beings. Or else the quasi-religion, spiritualism, which
is closely related to the idea of ghosts.
11. Transmigration of souls, as in Hinduism.
12. A metaphysical dialectical force that directs and controls the
course of history, as in Hegelian and Marxian dialectics.
13. A supernatural power through which amulets, talismans, and
rituals can ward off bad luck.
14. Something else so cockeyed foolish that you're ashamed so say
what it is but that you nevertheless think Kubrick might have
"believed."
Your suggestion that Kubrick "believed" one or more of these
things is insulting to Kubrick and too his memory. Hang your head in
shame.
Wheat's assertion that the magazine interview of
'68 is final, irrevocable proof of Stanley's atheism is foolish because SK
did a number of other interviews between the late '60s and his death.
Let's see if I understand you. After expressing his atheism in words
no intelligent person could misinterpret, Kubrick "did a number of
other interviews." Without regard for the content of these
interviews, you are asserting that the mere fact that he was
interviewed contradicts (or at least weakens) what he said in the
Playboy interview.
This is the sort of reasoning we often see in your posts. You seem to
have an ego-driven desire for attention, and you don't much care what
you say to get it. As someone else once said, you like to engage in
self-immolation.
[snip]
Wordsmith :)
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-30 14:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."
I don't have copy of the Ciment book, but I seem to recall a piece in it
that SK, musing about the ideas in *The Shining*, said somthing about
if we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death is not the end of our existence.
Proof enough?
How naive can a person get? Like Kubrick, I am an atheist. I am
perfectly willing to say, "IF we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death
is not the end of our existence." The statement is obviously true.
If there are ghosts, death is not the end of our existence. But how
does that prove that I or Kubrick ever believed in ghosts?

And for that matter, how would belief in ghosts prove belief in God?
Granted, most superstitious people accept a multitude of
superstitions. But you can't simply assume that someone who accepts
one superstition accepts another particular superstition.
Post by Wordsmith
Why did you turn my adverb into an adjective? Adverbs modify verbs. Adjectives
modify nouns. When I said "unconventionally," I meant just that. You love
reconfiguring statements. Such reveals your shallow thoughts.
A person who calls himself Wordsmith should try to learn a little more
about words. As a very minor preliminary point, you might want to
learn that adverbs modify adjectives and other adverbs as well as
verbs.

As a far more important point, you should try to learn how to
interpret words in context. Learn to grasp the SUBSTANCE of what is
said. Learn how one phrasing can be put into different words that
mean the same thing (which is why the abbreviation "i.e." was
invented). When you write that "SK . . . UNCONVENTIONALLY . . .
believed in something beyond the mere physical," that means exactly
the same thing as "SK held an UNCONVENTIONAL belief in something
beyond the mere physical."

When you now claim that my rephrasing misrepresents your position, you
tacitly acknowledge that you don't understand your own position.
Either that or (and this seems to be the case) you are ashamed of the
position you took and are now trying to disassociate yourself from it.
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
In other words, you prefer to manufacture facts out of whole cloth.
To you, the only genuine source of truth is faith. And so, you
assert, as a matter of personal faith, that Kubrick believed in some
implicitly supernatural or metaphysical entity, power, or reality.
How are you so sure what SK felt in his heart?
We are discussing Kubrick's mind, not his heart. I can be sure what
he thought in his mind because he told us. He told us he didn't
believe in God.
Post by Wordsmith
Are you that smitten with empiricism?
You bet I am.
Post by Wordsmith
And it's telling you didn't comment on my speculation
on what he may have been thinking on his death bed. That frightens you,
doesn't it?
Once again you equate speculation with evidence. Why do you insist on
putting your naivete on display?
Wordsmith
2003-07-30 17:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."
I don't have copy of the Ciment book, but I seem to recall a piece in it
that SK, musing about the ideas in *The Shining*, said somthing about
if we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death is not the end of our existence.
Proof enough?
How naive can a person get? Like Kubrick, I am an atheist.
You can't speak of SK, or any of his possible qualities, in present tense.
He's dead. Who's using words wrong now?


I am
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
perfectly willing to say, "IF we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death
is not the end of our existence." The statement is obviously true.
If there are ghosts, death is not the end of our existence. But how
does that prove that I or Kubrick ever believed in ghosts?
I'm not talking of you. I'm talking of Kubrick. How does it prove his
belief? Preponderance of evidence. His assertion makes it more likely
than not.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
And for that matter, how would belief in ghosts prove belief in God?
The ghosts had to originate somewhere.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Granted, most superstitious people accept a multitude of
superstitions. But you can't simply assume that someone who accepts
one superstition accepts another particular superstition.
Post by Wordsmith
Why did you turn my adverb into an adjective? Adverbs modify verbs. Adjectives
modify nouns. When I said "unconventionally," I meant just that. You love
reconfiguring statements. Such reveals your shallow thoughts.
A person who calls himself Wordsmith should try to learn a little more
about words. As a very minor preliminary point, you might want to
learn that adverbs modify adjectives and other adverbs as well as
verbs.
I know that.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
As a far more important point, you should try to learn how to
interpret words in context. Learn to grasp the SUBSTANCE of what is
said. Learn how one phrasing can be put into different words that
mean the same thing (which is why the abbreviation "i.e." was
invented). When you write that "SK . . . UNCONVENTIONALLY . . .
believed in something beyond the mere physical," that means exactly
the same thing as "SK held an UNCONVENTIONAL belief in something
beyond the mere physical."
How long have you had a parsing obsession?
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
When you now claim that my rephrasing misrepresents your position, you
tacitly acknowledge that you don't understand your own position.
Either that or (and this seems to be the case) you are ashamed of the
position you took and are now trying to disassociate yourself from it.
I understand it well. It is you who do not.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
In other words, you prefer to manufacture facts out of whole cloth.
To you, the only genuine source of truth is faith. And so, you
assert, as a matter of personal faith, that Kubrick believed in some
implicitly supernatural or metaphysical entity, power, or reality.
How are you so sure what SK felt in his heart?
We are discussing Kubrick's mind, not his heart. I can be sure what
he thought in his mind because he told us. He told us he didn't
believe in God.
He told lots of things. He could have kept something to himself.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Wordsmith
Are you that smitten with empiricism?
You bet I am.
Then go save the world with it.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Wordsmith
And it's telling you didn't comment on my speculation
on what he may have been thinking on his death bed. That frightens you,
doesn't it?
Once again you equate speculation with evidence. Why do you insist on
putting your naivete on display?
I do it to bait you into displaying yours. Which I've done a good job of.

Wordsmith :)
MGenevieve
2003-07-30 18:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."
I don't have copy of the Ciment book, but I seem to recall a piece in it
that SK, musing about the ideas in *The Shining*, said somthing about
if we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death is not the end of our existence.
Proof enough?
How naive can a person get? Like Kubrick, I am an atheist. I am
perfectly willing to say, "IF we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death
is not the end of our existence." The statement is obviously true.
If there are ghosts, death is not the end of our existence. But how
does that prove that I or Kubrick ever believed in ghosts?
And for that matter, how would belief in ghosts prove belief in God?
Granted, most superstitious people accept a multitude of
superstitions. But you can't simply assume that someone who accepts
one superstition accepts another particular superstition.
<snip>

You should know that Katharina Kubrick noted on her FAQ that her
father was "very superstitious." That's a quote.

Genevieve
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-30 22:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by MGenevieve
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Wordsmith
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in something
beyond the mere physical.
That opinion marks you as a shallow thinker. Or perhaps I should say,
someone who prefers not to think at all. You assert, without offering
a shred of evidence to support your belief, that Kubrick "believed in
something beyond the mere physical" and that this "something" might be
(you seem here to mean "probably was") "unconventional."
I don't have copy of the Ciment book, but I seem to recall a piece in it
that SK, musing about the ideas in *The Shining*, said somthing about
if we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death is not the end of our existence.
Proof enough?
How naive can a person get? Like Kubrick, I am an atheist. I am
perfectly willing to say, "IF we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death
is not the end of our existence." The statement is obviously true.
If there are ghosts, death is not the end of our existence. But how
does that prove that I or Kubrick ever believed in ghosts?
And for that matter, how would belief in ghosts prove belief in God?
Granted, most superstitious people accept a multitude of
superstitions. But you can't simply assume that someone who accepts
one superstition accepts another particular superstition.
<snip>
You should know that Katharina Kubrick noted on her FAQ that her
father was "very superstitious." That's a quote.
Genevieve
Perhaps he was, and perhaps he wasn't. "Superstitious" is
sometimes used loosely in reference to things that are not true
superstitions, things that are merely false beliefs or fears.
Katharina could have been referring to her father's fear of flying, a
fear that is perfectly justifiable by the way.

A true superstition is a false belief that assumes the reality
of SOMETHING SUPERNATURAL. If I believe in ghosts and ghosts really
exist, my belief is not a superstition. But if ghosts don't exist, my
belief is a superstition.

I would have to see some specifics about Kubrick's
"superstitious" beliefs before regarding them as true superstitions.
But even if these beliefs do turn out to be superstitions, that would
not contradict his atheism. It is entirely possible for someone to be
superstitious about the number 13, or even ghosts, and still not
believe in God. In his Playboy interview, Kubrick made it perfectly
plain that he does not believe in God.
MGenevieve
2003-07-31 14:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by MGenevieve
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in > > <snip>
You should know that Katharina Kubrick noted on her FAQ that her
father was "very superstitious." That's a quote.
Genevieve
Perhaps he was, and perhaps he wasn't. "Superstitious" is
sometimes used loosely in reference to things that are not true
superstitions, things that are merely false beliefs or fears.
Katharina could have been referring to her father's fear of flying, a
fear that is perfectly justifiable by the way.
<snip>

Up to this point, I have tried to conduct myself in a civil manner on
this thread, but I must say that it seems that you think you know
*everything* about Kubrick's personality - more so than his boyhood
friends or eldest daughter! Unbelievable.

Count me out on this thread. It is like having a discussion with a
Christian or Islamic fundamentalist who has answers for everything. A
literalist is the most unimaginative, dry person one is likely to
meet.

P.S. I'm glad that when I saw "2001" as a child with my mother she
never spoke to me about its "meaning" and let me have my own thoughts
and interpretation.

Genevieve
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-31 17:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by MGenevieve
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by MGenevieve
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The real evidence of Kubrick's atheism comes from the Playboy
interview.
Of this I have no doubt: SK, however unconventionally, believed in > > <snip>
You should know that Katharina Kubrick noted on her FAQ that her
father was "very superstitious." That's a quote.
Genevieve
Perhaps he was, and perhaps he wasn't. "Superstitious" is
sometimes used loosely in reference to things that are not true
superstitions, things that are merely false beliefs or fears.
Katharina could have been referring to her father's fear of flying, a
fear that is perfectly justifiable by the way.
<snip>
Up to this point, I have tried to conduct myself in a civil manner on
this thread, but I must say that it seems that you think you know
*everything* about Kubrick's personality - more so than his boyhood
friends or eldest daughter! Unbelievable.
Your reaction surprises me, given that I have not expressed any
convictions about either "Kubrick's personality" or whether or not he
was superstitious. I did say he was Jewish in an ethnic-cultural
sense, but that statement says nothing about his personality. I also
expressed uncertainty (not any convictions)about the extent to which
he was culturally Jewish. I raised a lot of questions but provided no
answers, because I have none. How does that constitute knowing
everything?

Perhaps you thought my questions about the amount of Jewish
tradition and religion in Kubrick's upbringing (e.g., did he have a
bar mitzvah?) were flip or implied skepticism. Neither is the case.
Those were serious questions, and I have no opinion (and offered none)
about what the answers are. I really don't know how Jewish he was.

And what's this about his boyhood friends? As best I can recall,
the only thing that came up on that subject is that someone (you?)
said his best boyhood friend was Jewish. I think I recall the name
Spring. I didn't comment on that. If Spring (or whatever his name
was) said anything about Kubrick's personality or his Jewishness, I
don't recall it. And I certainly didn't challenge it. Perhaps you
could quote or paraphrase what Spring said.

Am I wrong in thinking that Jan Harlan was more than a
brother-in-law, that he was also a friend of Kubrick's, and that he
was non-Jewish? If so, that doesn't square with the idea that his
friends were limited to Jews. But even on that issue I remain open to
evidence, since I don't know of anyone else other than his wife who
was both a friend and non-Jewish.

Your reaction suggests that you are the one who "knows
everything" about "Kubrick's personality." You seem to think that
what you know or said has been challenged.

If by "Kubrick's personality" you were merely referring narrowly
to the issue of superstition, I took no position on that either.
Since his fear of flying has been well publicized, it seems entirely
conceivable that Katharina was alluding to that rather than to beliefs
in the supernatural. I think you are also aware that "superstition"
is also used loosely to mean false ideas, without any implication of
supernaturalism. When you examine those two facts (yes, facts) in the
context of (a) Kubrick's disavowal of God and religion and (b)
Katharina's failure to provide any specifics, I see nothing dogmatic
or know-it-allish about my expressing doubts concerning whether
Kubrick held supernaturalistic superstitions.

It seems to me that you are the one who claims to know it all.
In the face of ambiguous and conflicting evidence, you remain so
totally convinced that Kubrick was superstitious in the supernatural
sense that you express anger towards anyone who would dare to question
your belief.
Post by MGenevieve
Genevieve
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-30 22:34:40 UTC
Permalink
I am perfectly willing to say, "IF we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death
is not the end of our existence." The statement is obviously true.
If there are ghosts, death is not the end of our existence. But how
does that prove that I or Kubrick ever believed in ghosts?
It doesn't.
Nor does the playboy interview proof that Kubrick didn't believe in
(a) God.
Again, his statement is one of many, one that is fixed on the context,
themes, subjectmatter etc, of one of his films, 2001.
Besides that, he doesn't say: "I am an atheist." Or does he?
There are all kinds of ways of phrasing a point. If you were to say
(as I'm sure you have), "I believe in God," how would you react if I
were to say in reply that your statement proves nothing because you
didn't say, "I am a theist"?

When Kubrick says the God he could accept is a highly evolved race
(many individuals, not one being; naturally evolved, not supernatural;
created by the universe, not the creator of the universe) of aliens
from another planet in another solar system, and says this by way of
elaborating on the point that he does not believe in any of the
world's religions, his meaning is plain: he does not believe in God.

Get your head out of the sand.
And just because Kubrick at one date in history proclaims "I don't
believe in
any of Earth's monotheistic religions", doesn't automatically assume
that he cannot accept or would "believe" in another (his own)
definition of God.
For instance, the "scientific definition of God".
Kubrick had the opportunity to clarify what he meant, and clarify is
what he did. The other definition of God, the "scientific definition"
he said he would accept, is a FIGURATIVE god, not a literal,
supernatural God. How can anyone be so dense as you?
dutch_angle
2003-07-31 09:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
I am perfectly willing to say, "IF we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death
is not the end of our existence." The statement is obviously true.
If there are ghosts, death is not the end of our existence. But how
does that prove that I or Kubrick ever believed in ghosts?
It doesn't.
Nor does the playboy interview proof that Kubrick didn't believe in
(a) God.
Again, his statement is one of many, one that is fixed on the context,
themes, subjectmatter etc, of one of his films, 2001.
Besides that, he doesn't say: "I am an atheist." Or does he?
There are all kinds of ways of phrasing a point.
Perhaps your point, not Kubrick's.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
If you were to say
(as I'm sure you have), "I believe in God,"
You're wrong again.
(did I say I'm an atheist?)
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
how would you react if I
were to say in reply that your statement proves nothing because you
didn't say, "I am a theist"?
My reaction would be something like:
It will proof nothing, indeed.
Bad example, just 2 statements in the air.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
When Kubrick says the God he could accept is a highly evolved race
(many individuals, not one being; naturally evolved, not supernatural;
created by the universe, not the creator of the universe) of aliens
from another planet in another solar system, and says this by way of
elaborating on the point that he does not believe in any of the
world's religions, his meaning is plain: he does not believe in God.
That is your conclusion, not Kubrick's meaning.
He avoids explaining "meaning", read the interviews, there's your
"evidence".
You take it further even, you say Kubrick "kills God twice".
His films are no evidence for that; it's just your 1D conclusion.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Get your head out of the sand.
LOL! Way to go!
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
And just because Kubrick at one date in history proclaims "I don't
believe in
any of Earth's monotheistic religions", doesn't automatically assume
that he cannot accept or would "believe" in another (his own)
definition of God.
For instance, the "scientific definition of God".
Kubrick had the opportunity to clarify what he meant, and clarify is
what he did.
He clearly mentions that he doesn't want to go into directions of
"what he meant" with 2001. And when he clarifies, in one playboy
interview, that he does not belief in earth's monotheistic Gods, he
doesn't therefore clarify that he doesn't belief in a God.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
The other definition of God, the "scientific definition"
he said he would accept, is a FIGURATIVE god, not a literal,
supernatural God.
Which is your kind of evidence that he is not an atheist.
And 2001 is your kind of evidence that he provides, ehm, clarifies,
his insight into a God that he could belief in, at least as a
director.
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
How can anyone be so dense as you?
Because I'm sure there's more to be learned in the sand, then there is
reading your statements on Kubrick.

d.a.
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-31 14:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
I am perfectly willing to say, "IF we believe in ghosts, then perhaps death
is not the end of our existence." The statement is obviously true.
If there are ghosts, death is not the end of our existence. But how
does that prove that I or Kubrick ever believed in ghosts?
It doesn't.
Nor does the playboy interview proof that Kubrick didn't believe in
(a) God.
Again, his statement is one of many, one that is fixed on the context,
themes, subjectmatter etc, of one of his films, 2001.
Besides that, he doesn't say: "I am an atheist." Or does he?
There are all kinds of ways of phrasing a point.
Perhaps your point, not Kubrick's.
Kubrick's point was that he didn't believe in God. That point can be
stated in all sorts of ways that you lack the linguistic skills and
imagination to put into words. Here's a dozen of those "all kinds of
ways":

1. I don't believe in any of the world's religions. When we talk
about religion, we're talking about God, so let me clarify what I do
believe about God. The God I think may exist is a "scientifically
defined God," namely, a race of highly evolved aliens from another
planet in another solar system [i.e., a FIGURATIVE "God," not a
supernatural being, indeed not A being at all]. These alien beings
would SEEM like [not actually be] gods to us humans because their
powers would be so far beyond ours. (Paraphrase of Kubrick)

2. I do not believe in God.

3. I am an atheist.

4. I am not a believer.

5. I am a free thinker.

6. Man is the Supreme Being for man. (Marx)

7. Religion is the opium of the masses. (Marx)

8. No divine being exists. (Tillich)

9. Atheism is the correct response to the concept of a
supernatural God. (Tillich)

10. God is not A being but human being itself.

11. Only naive and gullible persons believe in God.

12. Belief in anything supernatural is hogwash.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
If you were to say
(as I'm sure you have), "I believe in God,"
You're wrong again.
(did I say I'm an atheist?)
Did I say you said you were an atheist?
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
how would you react if I
were to say in reply that your statement proves nothing because you
didn't say, "I am a theist"?
It will proof nothing, indeed.
Bad example, just 2 statements in the air.
You ARE having difficulty reading. Two strikes in a row. I was
referring, in clear words no careful reader could misinterpret, to
proof of what you believe, not to proof of God's existence or
nonexistence. You claimed, falsely, that Tillich's disavowal of
belief in God doesn't count because "he doesn't say: 'I am an
atheist.'" You were clearly implying that "I am an atheist" is the
phrasing Kubrick would have to have used for you to accept it as
proof.
Post by dutch_angle
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
When Kubrick says the God he could accept is a highly evolved race
(many individuals, not one being; naturally evolved, not supernatural;
created by the universe, not the creator of the universe) of aliens
from another planet in another solar system, and says this by way of
elaborating on the point that he does not believe in any of the
world's religions, his meaning is plain: he does not believe in God.
That is your conclusion, not Kubrick's meaning.
He avoids explaining "meaning"
Avoids explaining? In elaborating about the sort of God whose
existence he would accept as probable, Kubrick is alluding to the fact
that his preceding statement ("I do not believe in any of the world's
religions") implicitly refers to God. By elaborating about God, he is
making it plain that belief in a supernatural God is included in his
concept of "the world's religions." And, in his elaboration, he very
clearly explains the type of God he could believe in. That "God" is a
figurative God, a nonsupernatural God, not the supernatural being
known as God.

[snip]
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-29 03:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by John Smith
was Kubrick catholic?
Kubrick was an atheist. He was of Jewish descent, but he was
not a Jew in the religious sense of the word (only in the quasi-racial
ethnic-cultural sense). There isn't even much evidence that he was
culturally Jewish: he liked to think of himself as being of Austrian
ancestry, and if he had a bar mitzvah that fact didn't creep into his
biographies.
<large snip>
I basically agree with you about Kubrick's religious or rather
non-religious sentiments although I would think that he was more of an
agnostic. However, I think Kubrick was _very much_ culturally Jewish.
I don't know what you would accept as "evidence" when it comes to this
issue. And I don't know how you define "quasi-racial
ethnic-cultural..."
I really don't disagree with anything you say, but some clarification
is in order. I'm open to any evidence, including bar mitzvah evidence
if there is any, that Kubrick was culturally Jewish. I wouldn't,
however, recognize being the object of anti-Jewish attitudes as
defining one's cultural orientation. Whether his family insisted on
Kosher food and avoided pork would be more to the point. So would
attendance at the local synagogue and obedience to various Jewish laws
beyond kosher and wearing a yarmulke on appropriate occasions during
his youth. I'm not saying none of these things applied to Kubrick's
upbringing; I'm just saying I've seen no evidence that they did.

When I suggested that Kubrick was Jewish in a quasi-racial sense, I
was alluding to the status of semites as a racial subgroup. And
"quasi" alludes to the fact that anthropologists don't regard Jews as
constituting a true racial category, even though there are racial
overtones.

As for the ethnic-cultural aspect, I was distinguishing the cultural
aspects of being Jewish from the religious aspects. Perhaps a lot
depends on how a person of Jewish ancestry thinks of himself or
herself. That's why I made the point about Kubrick liking to think of
himself as of Austrian background, misleading though that idea is.
As you know, his ancestry was broadly East European: Rumanian, Polish,
and Austro-Hungarian - which means little since that Empire consisted
of many non-Austrian countries and Kubrick's Jewish ancestors were
mostly segregated during the centuries...
My point wasn't that his ancestry WAS Austrian. His ancestry was, as
you indicate, complex. What I said was that he liked to REGARD
himself as being of Austrian descent.
And - as a person from an Austrian Catholic & Protestant background, I
can confidently say that "being Austrian" has always been a rather
complex issue, culturally and racially.
What Kubrick was drawn to, imagined himself to be, and the kind of
person he evolved into over the decades, culturally speaking, is a
multifaceted subject.
So I ask you not dismiss his Jewish background lightly and the
influence his background even had on his films. Particularly when it
came to being as he was, a second or third-generation American Jew
living in New York City during the 1930s/40s/50s. BTW, his best friend
during high school, Alexander Singer who collaborated with Kubrick on
every film up to "The Killing," was from an orthodox [Jewish] family.
Singer and Kubrick's other Jewish friend from the Bronx, composer
Gerald Fried could tell you a bit about the Anti-semitism they
experienced in New York during those days. (I do distinguish
Antisemitism from Anti-Zionism but that's something else!)
Genevieve
Mark Seely
2003-08-11 07:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Mr. Wheat:

Speaking of religion, I never did get your opinion of my finding that the
running time of "2001" is related to the number 666. We corresponded about
a year ago about a different matter, the number 17 in the movie.

What I have found is that the total running time of "2001," from "Overture"
through "Exit Music," in seconds, is equal to the number of moon orbits in a
year times 666, that being 8903 seconds. And the running time of the movie
itself, in seconds, as measured from the white-on-blue MGM lion logo to the
fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases in a year times
666, that being 8237 seconds.

This could also bear on the fact that Pope John Paul II formally endorsed
the movie in 1999, a month before Kubrick died. We know that Kubrick died
666 days before the first day of the year 2001.

Catholicism is the religion that says that 666 is the number of the name of
the beast that tries to devour the child of the woman. It is also the
amount of gold that Solomon gave someone, or something like that.

Mark Seely

-

"The 1968 Movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" May Have Been a Prediction about the
Events of September 11, 2001, And It May Have Cost the Movie Director,
Stanley Kubrick, His Life"
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/busta
------------------------------------------------------
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Post by John Smith
was Kubrick catholic?
Kubrick was an atheist. He was of Jewish descent, but he was
not a Jew in the religious sense of the word (only in the quasi-racial
ethnic-cultural sense). There isn't even much evidence that he was
culturally Jewish: he liked to think of himself as being of Austrian
ancestry, and if he had a bar mitzvah that fact didn't creep into his
biographies.
<large snip>
I basically agree with you about Kubrick's religious or rather
non-religious sentiments although I would think that he was more of an
agnostic. However, I think Kubrick was _very much_ culturally Jewish.
I don't know what you would accept as "evidence" when it comes to this
issue. And I don't know how you define "quasi-racial
ethnic-cultural..."
I really don't disagree with anything you say, but some clarification
is in order. I'm open to any evidence, including bar mitzvah evidence
if there is any, that Kubrick was culturally Jewish. I wouldn't,
however, recognize being the object of anti-Jewish attitudes as
defining one's cultural orientation. Whether his family insisted on
Kosher food and avoided pork would be more to the point. So would
attendance at the local synagogue and obedience to various Jewish laws
beyond kosher and wearing a yarmulke on appropriate occasions during
his youth. I'm not saying none of these things applied to Kubrick's
upbringing; I'm just saying I've seen no evidence that they did.
When I suggested that Kubrick was Jewish in a quasi-racial sense, I
was alluding to the status of semites as a racial subgroup. And
"quasi" alludes to the fact that anthropologists don't regard Jews as
constituting a true racial category, even though there are racial
overtones.
As for the ethnic-cultural aspect, I was distinguishing the cultural
aspects of being Jewish from the religious aspects. Perhaps a lot
depends on how a person of Jewish ancestry thinks of himself or
herself. That's why I made the point about Kubrick liking to think of
himself as of Austrian background, misleading though that idea is.
As you know, his ancestry was broadly East European: Rumanian, Polish,
and Austro-Hungarian - which means little since that Empire consisted
of many non-Austrian countries and Kubrick's Jewish ancestors were
mostly segregated during the centuries...
My point wasn't that his ancestry WAS Austrian. His ancestry was, as
you indicate, complex. What I said was that he liked to REGARD
himself as being of Austrian descent.
And - as a person from an Austrian Catholic & Protestant background, I
can confidently say that "being Austrian" has always been a rather
complex issue, culturally and racially.
What Kubrick was drawn to, imagined himself to be, and the kind of
person he evolved into over the decades, culturally speaking, is a
multifaceted subject.
So I ask you not dismiss his Jewish background lightly and the
influence his background even had on his films. Particularly when it
came to being as he was, a second or third-generation American Jew
living in New York City during the 1930s/40s/50s. BTW, his best friend
during high school, Alexander Singer who collaborated with Kubrick on
every film up to "The Killing," was from an orthodox [Jewish] family.
Singer and Kubrick's other Jewish friend from the Bronx, composer
Gerald Fried could tell you a bit about the Anti-semitism they
experienced in New York during those days. (I do distinguish
Antisemitism from Anti-Zionism but that's something else!)
Genevieve
Bill Reid
2003-08-11 20:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Seely
Speaking of religion, I never did get your opinion of my finding that the
running time of "2001" is related to the number 666.
What I have found is that the running time of the movie
itself, in seconds, as measured from the white-on-blue MGM lion logo to the
fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases in a year times
666, that being 8237 seconds.
I don't know where you got your information, Mark, but you are badly
misinformed about how Kubrick determined the 8,237 second running time
You guys are both wrong. However, if you carefully count all the
cash that Tom Cruise spends in "Eyes Wide Shut",
it's $666. Note that Kubrick deliberately and absurdly
underpriced the cost of the lost mask to acheive this effect.

Always glad to heap.

---
William Ernest Reid
Mark Seely
2003-08-11 22:07:39 UTC
Permalink
I hate to have to ask you if you're serious, but with so many non-people
creatures making sarcastic remarks these days, I have to ask, did Cruise's
character really spend exactly $666 in "Eyes Wide Shut"? And furthermore,
how did you find this out? It seems unlikely that an independent
investigator would have discovered this, as I appear to be the only
independent investigator around.

--
------------------------------------------------------
"The 1968 Movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" May Have Been a Prediction about the
Events of September 11, 2001, And It May Have Cost the Movie Director,
Stanley Kubrick, His Life"
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/busta
------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Mark Seely
Speaking of religion, I never did get your opinion of my finding that
the
Post by Mark Seely
running time of "2001" is related to the number 666.
What I have found is that the running time of the movie
itself, in seconds, as measured from the white-on-blue MGM lion logo
to
Post by Bill Reid
the
Post by Mark Seely
fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases in a year
times
Post by Mark Seely
666, that being 8237 seconds.
I don't know where you got your information, Mark, but you are badly
misinformed about how Kubrick determined the 8,237 second running time
You guys are both wrong. However, if you carefully count all the
cash that Tom Cruise spends in "Eyes Wide Shut",
it's $666. Note that Kubrick deliberately and absurdly
underpriced the cost of the lost mask to acheive this effect.
Always glad to heap.
---
William Ernest Reid
Mark Seely
2003-08-11 22:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Oh wait, I get it, you're full of shit like Wheat, because you said I'm
wrong. And I know I'm not.

--
------------------------------------------------------
"The 1968 Movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" May Have Been a Prediction about the
Events of September 11, 2001, And It May Have Cost the Movie Director,
Stanley Kubrick, His Life"
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/busta
------------------------------------------------------
Post by Bill Reid
Post by Mark Seely
Speaking of religion, I never did get your opinion of my finding that
the
Post by Mark Seely
running time of "2001" is related to the number 666.
What I have found is that the running time of the movie
itself, in seconds, as measured from the white-on-blue MGM lion logo
to
Post by Bill Reid
the
Post by Mark Seely
fade-out of the story, is equal to the number of moon phases in a year
times
Post by Mark Seely
666, that being 8237 seconds.
I don't know where you got your information, Mark, but you are badly
misinformed about how Kubrick determined the 8,237 second running time
You guys are both wrong. However, if you carefully count all the
cash that Tom Cruise spends in "Eyes Wide Shut",
it's $666. Note that Kubrick deliberately and absurdly
underpriced the cost of the lost mask to acheive this effect.
Always glad to heap.
---
William Ernest Reid
JSpringer0953
2003-07-31 13:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/30/2003 9:23 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Points to ponder from Summa Theologica
Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two
contraries
Post by JSpringer0953
be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God"
means
Post by JSpringer0953
that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no
evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not
exist.
Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be
accounted
Post by JSpringer0953
for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that
everything
Post by JSpringer0953
we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God
did
Post by JSpringer0953
not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is
nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is
human
Post by JSpringer0953
reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus
3:14)
Post by JSpringer0953
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain,
and
Post by JSpringer0953
evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now
whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in
motion
Post by JSpringer0953
except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas
a
Post by JSpringer0953
thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the
reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be
reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of
actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is
potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now
it
Post by JSpringer0953
is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and
potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what
is
Post by JSpringer0953
actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is
simultaneously
Post by JSpringer0953
potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and
in
Post by JSpringer0953
the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should
move
Post by JSpringer0953
itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.
If
Post by JSpringer0953
that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also
must
Post by JSpringer0953
needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this
cannot
Post by JSpringer0953
go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and,
consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only
inasmuch
Post by JSpringer0953
as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only
because
Post by JSpringer0953
it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a
first
Post by JSpringer0953
mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of
sense
Post by JSpringer0953
we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known
(neither
Post by JSpringer0953
is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient
cause of
Post by JSpringer0953
itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in
efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all
efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the
intermediate
Post by JSpringer0953
cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the
intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is
to
Post by JSpringer0953
take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient
causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in
efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no
first
Post by JSpringer0953
efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any
intermediate
Post by JSpringer0953
efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary
to
Post by JSpringer0953
admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We
find
Post by JSpringer0953
in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are
found to
Post by JSpringer0953
be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and
not
Post by JSpringer0953
to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is
possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is
possible
Post by JSpringer0953
not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now
if
Post by JSpringer0953
this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that
which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing.
Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been
impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing
would
Post by JSpringer0953
be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely
possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is
necessary.
Post by JSpringer0953
But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or
not.
Post by JSpringer0953
Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have
their
Post by JSpringer0953
necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to
efficient
Post by JSpringer0953
causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being
having of
Post by JSpringer0953
itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather
causing
Post by JSpringer0953
in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among
beings
Post by JSpringer0953
there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But
"more"
Post by JSpringer0953
and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble
in
Post by JSpringer0953
their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to
be
Post by JSpringer0953
hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that
there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and,
consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are
greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii.
Now
Post by JSpringer0953
the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which
is
Post by JSpringer0953
the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also
be
Post by JSpringer0953
something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and
every
Post by JSpringer0953
other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things
which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this
is
Post by JSpringer0953
evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as
to
Post by JSpringer0953
obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but
designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence
cannot
Post by JSpringer0953
move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with
knowledge
Post by JSpringer0953
and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore
some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to
their
Post by JSpringer0953
end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the
highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His
omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This
is
Post by JSpringer0953
part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist,
and
Post by JSpringer0953
out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the
direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be
traced
Post by JSpringer0953
back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily
must
Post by JSpringer0953
also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will,
since
Post by JSpringer0953
these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of
defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first
principle,
Post by JSpringer0953
as was shown in the body of the Article.
I thought you said you went to the University of Minnesota. Are you
now trying to tell us that you really went to St. Thomas, on the St.
Paul side of the Mississippi River? Regardless of your answer, did
you really think that quoting superstition written by your second
school's champion, Mr. Acquinas, would persuade anyone?
Is all philosophy "superstition" to you, Mr. Wheat? Why don't you at least
address the arguments of "Mr. Acquinas" [sic]? Perhaps because you don't have
the atheistic chops to offer refutation.
And what need would YOU have of Huxley, Mencken or Asimov? You seem to be an
authority unto yourself.

JOn
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-07-31 22:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JSpringer0953
Is all philosophy "superstition" to you, Mr. Wheat?
Nope. I would particularly recommend to you Machiavelli, the first
real empiricist; Kant, for his CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, which Aquinas
could have benefitted immensely from; Santayana, for his REASON IN
RELIGION; and Tillich, for undermining Christianity from within.
Post by JSpringer0953
Why don't you at least
address the arguments of "Mr. Acquinas" [sic]?
What purpose would that serve? Could anything I might say change your
mind?
JSpringer0953
2003-07-31 23:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Is all philosophy "superstition" to you, Mr. Wheat?
Nope. I would particularly recommend to you Machiavelli, the first
real empiricist; Kant, for his CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, which Aquinas
could have benefitted immensely from; Santayana, for his REASON IN
RELIGION; and Tillich, for undermining Christianity from within.
I'd say lots of folks are reading that last one, and putting it into practice.
Watch as the US Anglicans bite the dust, Leonard. And then cheer.
Post by JSpringer0953
Why don't you at least
address the arguments of "Mr. Acquinas" [sic]?
What purpose would that serve? Could anything I might say change your
mind?
Yes.
Leonard F. Wheat
2003-08-01 03:58:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by JSpringer0953
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Is all philosophy "superstition" to you, Mr. Wheat?
Nope. I would particularly recommend to you Machiavelli, the first
real empiricist; Kant, for his CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, which Aquinas
could have benefitted immensely from; Santayana, for his REASON IN
RELIGION; and Tillich, for undermining Christianity from within.
I'd say lots of folks are reading that last one, and putting it into practice.
Watch as the US Anglicans bite the dust, Leonard. And then cheer.
Post by JSpringer0953
Why don't you at least
address the arguments of "Mr. Acquinas" [sic]?
What purpose would that serve? Could anything I might say change your
mind?
Yes.
Oh, you big overgrown crybaby. All right, I'll refute Aquinas for
you, but just his first argument. I really don't have time to go
through the whole pile of nonsense, so you'll just have to pay
attention to how it's done and then refute the rest of the arguments
yourself.

Aquinas' first argument he calls "argument from motion." It is the
well known "first cause argument," gussied up with lots of extra
verbiage so as to make a simple, and extremely naive, idea more
impressive. The basic idea is this:

Everything must have a cause. Hence the universe and all its contents
must have a cause. And that cause, the first cause, must be God.

(Notice how I was able to say in less than 2 lines what Aquinas took
18 lines of verbiage to say.)

Now I'll restate the argument in a few of the more important words of
Aquinas: "Whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If
that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this
also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another
again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be
no first mover. . . . Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first
mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be
God."

The argument has four basic flaws:

(1) QUESTION BEGGING: "Because then there would be no
first mover" begs the question of whether a first mover is necessary.
Aquinas just makes the assumption. But earlier he argued forcefully
that everything must have a cause. He said nothing can be put in
motion without something else that puts it in motion. So how does he
justify assuming that God is an exception? He doesn't. He just
assumes it. But that amounts to ASSUMING the existence of God. He
hasn't proven anything. The truth is, if the universe can go forward
to infinity, it can go backwards to infinity.

Either St. Thomas is right about everything needing a cause or he is
wrong. If he is right, he needs to account for God's existence. If
he is wrong, the whole argument collapse.

It should be obvious that God, if he exists, had a cause. And the
cause of God's coming into existence must have been the Wicked Witch
of the Void. How do I know? I know for essentially the same reason
Aquinas gave for knowing that HIS "first cause" was God: "This [cause]
everyone understands to be God." My reason for knowing that the
Wicked Witch of the Void caused God is: Everyone understands this
cause of God to be the Wicked Witch of the Void.

By the way, the Wicked Witch had her own cause, and so on back down
the line, but I don't have time to explore all those other creatures.

(2) IF THERE WAS A FIRST CAUSE, IT MIGHT HAVE PRECEDED GOD.
Why must the backwards progression begin with God? Why couldn't the
first cause have been several generations before God, with God being
followed by some other cause. There is good evidence (as good as any
produced by Aquinas) that the real first cause was a Magical Computer
of infinite intelligence and creative power. It created the Wicked
Witch of the Void. She created God and Athena before she died. God
and Athena, who were actually mortal, produced Bumzilla, a dragonlike
divinity who in turn created the universe.

(3) IF THERE WAS ONE PRE-UNIVERSE CAUSE, WHY MUST IT BE GOD?
"Everyone knows it" is about as convincing as hearing a citizen of
Saudi Arabia say, "Everyone knows the one true God is Allah."
"Everyone" always turns out to be a theologian.

M. Holmes Hartshorne pointed out that the universe could just as
easily have been created by a committee of Blue Devils. Permit me to
develop that hypothesis. The job of designing the universe was so
badly botched that it must have been done by committee. And since
devils are less competent than gods, it stands to reason that it was a
committee of devils. Likewise, because the sky is blue, we can safely
assume that the sky reflects the vanity of the committee members
concerning their own color: those guys were blue.

Did I say botched? And how! Where do I begin. How about mosquitos.
One committee member was in charge of small things, so this guy
created the mosquito and gave it an appetite for blood. He didn't
consult with the guy who designed humans. You know the result. The
first blue devil also designed the malaria bug and the West Nile virus
and the yellow fever bacteria to give the mosquitos something to put
in their guts and pass along to other worthy creatures.

Meanwhile, another blue devil in charge of somewhat bigger creatures
invented cobras and crocodiles, again without consulting the blue
devil in charge of humans. Still another blue devil thought it would
be nice to have asteroids flying around the universe and occasionally
smashing into planets, wiping out species and civilizations. The
blue devil in charge of human design and human social organization
gave us sunburn, insanity, mental retardation, epilepsy, Siamese
twins, armless babies, war, terrorist bombs, rape, murder, mass
suicide by cultists, wife-beating, chain-saw accidents, fraud
(including that which exploits the aged), drunk driving (gruesome
automobile smashups), man-made killer smog, and slums. (I'm sure
you'll agree that God could have done a much better job had he been
around to create humans, their society, and their environment.) The
blue devil in charge of solar systems decided it would be nice to have
pyrotechnics, so he arranged for stars to burn out and sometimes
explode, wiping out civilizations in the process. The blue devil in
charge of planetary physics provided us with tornados, hurricanes,
earthquakes, volcanic explosions and eruptions, tidal waves and rogue
waves, fires (including hotel fires), landslides and avalanches,
quicksand, lakes that suddenly belch massive clouds of low-hanging
carbon dioxide that suffocates hundreds of humans, and other
thoughtful details that help keep us on our toes. And so on.

Actually, Hartshorne's blue devil hypothesis is just one of many.
Other scientists think that the design of the universe was so badly
botched that it must have been done by a creature with no mind at all.
This creature was a giant cosmic jellyfish that floated around the
void dangling 43 almost infinitely long tentacles that gave off
occasional charges of energy. Some of the energy, distributed at
random by the tentacles wherever they happened to move, converted into
matter and gave us the early universe that evolved into the present
one.

A third hypothesis again takes note of all the evil and suffering in
the universe. According to this hypothesis there is not and never was
a God. Only Satan is real. He created the universe. "Everybody
knows" that Satan was the first cause.

There are many other equally plausible hypotheses I won't go into.
The Great Mowli, an ineffable creature of unknown characteristics is
among the more plausible creators. All we know about him is that he
has no human characteristics whatsoever.

(4) PARALLEL UNIVERSES: The May 2003 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN has a
fascinating article developing the theory of "Parallel Universes." I
can't summarize it here, but parallel universes could exist in four
different ways. And such universes may be coming into existence all
the time, popping out of cosmic fabric in big bangs. The fabric
itself may be evolving, having its own causes.
JW Moore
2003-08-01 05:13:40 UTC
Permalink
On 31 Jul 2003 20:58:52 -0700, ***@earthlink.net (Leonard F. Wheat) :

<snip>
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Actually, Hartshorne's blue devil hypothesis is just one of many.
Other scientists think that the design of the universe was so badly
botched that it must have been done by a creature with no mind at all.
Indeed. The "intelligent design" concept has been effectively eviscerated by evolutionists
who point out that 99 percent of all species that ever lived are now extict. Thus the
designer was either insane or incredibly inept.

An informative and entertaining resource:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

<snip>
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
(4) PARALLEL UNIVERSES: The May 2003 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN has a
fascinating article developing the theory of "Parallel Universes." I
can't summarize it here, but parallel universes could exist in four
different ways. And such universes may be coming into existence all
the time, popping out of cosmic fabric in big bangs. The fabric
itself may be evolving, having its own causes.
It's an article well worth reading:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000

~~Jack
JSpringer0953
2003-08-01 16:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 8/1/2003 12:13 AM Central Daylight Time
<snip>
Post by Leonard F. Wheat
Actually, Hartshorne's blue devil hypothesis is just one of many.
Other scientists think that the design of the universe was so badly
botched that it must have been done by a creature with no mind at all.
Indeed. The "intelligent design" concept has been effectively eviscerated by evolutionists
who point out that 99 percent of all species that ever lived are now extict. Thus the
designer was either insane or incredibly inept.
Either that or we were and are the ultimate purpose of creation.

JOn
JSpringer0953
2003-08-01 16:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 10:58 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Is all philosophy "superstition" to you, Mr. Wheat?
Nope. I would particularly recommend to you Machiavelli, the first
real empiricist; Kant, for his CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, which Aquinas
could have benefitted immensely from; Santayana, for his REASON IN
RELIGION; and Tillich, for undermining Christianity from within.
I'd say lots of folks are reading that last one, and putting it into
practice.
Post by JSpringer0953
Watch as the US Anglicans bite the dust, Leonard. And then cheer.
Post by JSpringer0953
Why don't you at least
address the arguments of "Mr. Acquinas" [sic]?
What purpose would that serve? Could anything I might say change your
mind?
Yes.
Oh, you big overgrown crybaby. All right, I'll refute Aquinas for
you, but just his first argument.
That's not what I meant by "yes," Leonard.
There are only three words you could say to me that would refute my entire
belief in my "ficticious" Christ, and our need for Him. Just think, Leonard,
only 3 words away from utterly toppling all of Christendom and the message that
started it all.

If you can say those 3 simple words to me although you despise me, and indeed
because you consider me an enemy of sorts - then I will be proven wrong before
all who are watching.

JOn
Wordsmith
2003-08-02 04:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by JSpringer0953
Post by JSpringer0953
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 10:58 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Is all philosophy "superstition" to you, Mr. Wheat?
Nope. I would particularly recommend to you Machiavelli, the first
real empiricist; Kant, for his CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, which Aquinas
could have benefitted immensely from; Santayana, for his REASON IN
RELIGION; and Tillich, for undermining Christianity from within.
I'd say lots of folks are reading that last one, and putting it into
practice.
Post by JSpringer0953
Post by JSpringer0953
Watch as the US Anglicans bite the dust, Leonard. And then cheer.
Post by JSpringer0953
Why don't you at least
address the arguments of "Mr. Acquinas" [sic]?
What purpose would that serve? Could anything I might say change your
mind?
Yes.
Oh, you big overgrown crybaby. All right, I'll refute Aquinas for
you, but just his first argument.
That's not what I meant by "yes," Leonard.
There are only three words you could say to me that would refute my entire
belief in my "ficticious" Christ, and our need for Him. Just think, Leonard,
only 3 words away from utterly toppling all of Christendom and the message that
started it all.
If you can say those 3 simple words to me although you despise me, and indeed
because you consider me an enemy of sorts - then I will be proven wrong before
all who are watching.
JOn
Fair enough: God is dead.
And the stinking corpse is to your nose tulips and roses in bloom.

Wordsmith :)
Magic7Ball
2003-08-02 10:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by JSpringer0953
Fair enough: God is dead.
I don't think God is necessarily dead. But I'm fairly certain by now he, she
or it doesn't give a shit.
Tak
2003-07-31 21:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Leonard, what point are you trying to make in this thread? Everyone agrees that
Kubrick probably was an atheist or agnostic, but that no one can really know
for sure - because we can't look into his heart.
therapy.
Because Kubrick was a great artist (and didn't kill millions of people like
other 20th Century atheists), other atheists tend to gather here and bask in
the afterglow of their master guru, to allow his secular humanist brilliance
wash over them and validate their tenuous convictions.
Only most do it with a little more sublte pleasure, while you come here like a
big fat mother sow to hog all of the atheistic warm fuzzies and overstate the
excruciatingly obvious. The upshot is your embarrassing your fellow unbelievers
who are here just to passively plug into Kubrick's theraputic atheistic matrix.
Which raises the question... what the fuck are YOU doing here?

TAk

PS - There are many atheists here because Kubrick films tend to appeal
to intelligent people, and the more intelligent you are, the more
likely you are to find doctrinaire religions (like Catholicism and
Islam) to be patently ridiculous (a thousand years of Medieval
"philosophy" notwithstanding). Intelligent conservatives (like you)
are the exception to the rule. You guys mostly just pretend not to be
atheists.
JSpringer0953
2003-07-31 21:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 4:01 PM Central Daylight Time
Leonard, what point are you trying to make in this thread? Everyone agrees
that
Kubrick probably was an atheist or agnostic, but that no one can really
know
for sure - because we can't look into his heart.
therapy.
Because Kubrick was a great artist (and didn't kill millions of people like
other 20th Century atheists), other atheists tend to gather here and bask
in
the afterglow of their master guru, to allow his secular humanist
brilliance
wash over them and validate their tenuous convictions.
Only most do it with a little more sublte pleasure, while you come here
like a
big fat mother sow to hog all of the atheistic warm fuzzies and overstate
the
excruciatingly obvious. The upshot is your embarrassing your fellow
unbelievers
who are here just to passively plug into Kubrick's theraputic atheistic
matrix.
Which raises the question... what the fuck are YOU doing here?
Well, at the moment I'm badgering Leonard...what are you doing here?

JOn
PCportinc
2003-08-01 16:30:16 UTC
Permalink
there is no such thing as a jewish race.
The American Indians are descendents
of Siberian natives, but they dont consider themselves Siberians.
JSpringer0953
2003-08-04 20:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 8/1/2003 5:58 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 10:58 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Subject: Re: religion
Date: 7/31/2003 5:10 PM Central Daylight Time
Post by JSpringer0953
Is all philosophy "superstition" to you, Mr. Wheat?
Nope. I would particularly recommend to you Machiavelli, the first
real empiricist; Kant, for his CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON, which Aquinas
could have benefitted immensely from; Santayana, for his REASON IN
RELIGION; and Tillich, for undermining Christianity from within.
I'd say lots of folks are reading that last one, and putting it into
practice.
Post by JSpringer0953
Watch as the US Anglicans bite the dust, Leonard. And then cheer.
Post by JSpringer0953
Why don't you at least
address the arguments of "Mr. Acquinas" [sic]?
What purpose would that serve? Could anything I might say change your
mind?
Yes.
Oh, you big overgrown crybaby. All right, I'll refute Aquinas for
you, but just his first argument.
That's not what I meant by "yes," Leonard.
There are only three words you could say to me that would refute my entire
belief in my "ficticious" Christ, and our need for Him. Just think,
Leonard,
Post by JSpringer0953
only 3 words away from utterly toppling all of Christendom and the message
that
Post by JSpringer0953
started it all.
If you can say those 3 simple words to me although you despise me, and
indeed
Post by JSpringer0953
because you consider me an enemy of sorts - then I will be proven wrong
before
Post by JSpringer0953
all who are watching.
JOn
Fair enough: God is dead.
No, Leonard. I'm sorry, those old fashion slogans aren't going to cut it
anymore. They don't refute anything. The need for Christ remains, and it stands
because Christ Himself is the Truth. Do you think Christ would reveal Himself
to those who mock the Truth?

Didn't it even surprise you that I affirm your theory on Tillich? - at least
insofar as he ultimately, although probably not intentionally, undermines
Christianity?

JOn
ichorwhip
2003-08-05 03:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JSpringer0953
Post by JSpringer0953
Fair enough: God is dead.
No, Leonard. I'm sorry, those old fashion slogans aren't going to cut it
anymore. They don't refute anything. The need for Christ remains, and it
stands because Christ Himself is the Truth. Do you think Christ would reveal
Himself to those who mock the Truth?
It's true folks.
Last night God came down and spoke to me.
In French.
I didn't understand a word he said...
"It's like those French have a different word for everything..."

Neitzche was just kidding I'm sure, but HE remains dead despite this.
The guy had a real problem with getting enough oxygen to his brain on
a consistent basis. I'm not at all comfortable swimming in the same
gene pool with him and who is? Nazis, Klan, and all manner of
psychotic hate mongers who are the scourge of the human race. He made
a lot of incendiary postulations that are not worth anything to this
day. I know I'm being general; just trying to avoid a long and boring
headache-filled exegesis on such a philosophical retard. My own
personal bent is that Kubrick's allusions to Neitzche in 2001 are
there for ironic purposes only. No way was SK ever a card-carrying
Neitzche Nut. The way the ascent of man is presented in 2001 would
have probably given Nutchy an aneurism.

"When did you first beco... er.., develop this theory?"
Ichorwhip
"Peace is Our Profession"
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...