That's the great thing about fiction you can ignore reality. Nature doesn't work like that. I am reminded of this quote by David Attenborough.



Worms burrowing through eyeballs, that's the reality of nature. Harmony is something that only exists in the movies.

[CENTER]"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs".
[/CENTER]

Hello Night Ripper. The negative overtones of your response are quite evident and that is understandable as most atheistic offerings are, gathered from the quote you offered. I am familiar with the inappropriate Attenborough quote. It is a common ploy of some to cite such erroneous analogies when one speaks of a god they know nothing about. Attenborough and Dawkin's are probably best friends, ha!



It seems a bit on the depressed side to espouse that is all that nature is, don't you think? Have you seen the movie? Ha, my eyeballs didn't have worms burrowing through them when I saw it.

I have come to recognize some truth in all that the mind of man represents in this reality even if he who is offering it doesn't recognize that truth themselves. Observing life through different lenses than most, is perhaps a more subtle way of describing it? Of course they are my lenses and I am not asking you to wear my glasses. Hopefully someone out there will draw the same correlations I did. :a-ok:

William

Well, it's isn't necessarily espousing all that nature is, not in Attenborough's case anyway.

The point is when extolling nature's beauty we shouldn't romanticise it to the point that we forget it's harsher side. If you're preteneding butterflies and hummingbirds are all there is you're in a state of denial.

Hello Dave, long time no quarrel, ha! I will admit you are a formidable adversary, ha! You expertise at derailing threads precedes you. You will not do it here.

AVATAR depicted natures harsher side and the Navi lived harmoniously with that as they lived above it. Only to save a stumbling innocent did they have to come down. They were a part of that harsh nature not so much in that they were physically a part of it, only in the respect they had of it and understood it. They could tap into it if need be to defend themselves and adapt to the harshness that would enable them to fight but that was not their nature overall.

I will ask you the same question I did Night Ripper. DID YOU SEE THE MOVIE? That is what this thread is about! Drawing correlations in what it depicted and the reality we live in. I don't appreciate anyone trying to sidetrack that with such an inane statement as "worms in eyeballs" is. That stirs my harsh nature also, ha! If you wish to entertain in the "glass is have empty" mentality, so be it, just don't do it in this thread.

So as to your last comment in accusing me of being in denial; as you now see that is definitely not the case. I am very cognitive of what Cameron was offering even if Cameron didn't realize it himself. Cameron is a gifted individual and I am sure he knew exactly what he was doing.

If you have seen the movie and would like to offer more comprehensive evaluations, please be my guest and offer it. Otherwise please just keep your comments to yourself if you don't mind.

Sorry for the tad bit of fire. I don't like being accused directly or indirectly of being in denial of anything.

Thanks,
William

This is a discussion forum - not a blithely agree with William forum. You don't get to tell me to keep my thoughts to myself I'm afraid.

Yeah I saw the movie. I quite liked the fact Hollywood takes on ecological messages from time to time and I think the battle over resources was a decent illusttration of man's rapacity - even if a multi-million dollar movie can only do such things with some degree of double standard.

But it was naive and certainly did not show nature in anything but an romanticised sense.

I saw Avatar - and I have liked James Cameron's work since I was a kid, and saw Terminator 2. His movies have a theme, it seems, at least the good ones. Humans destroy themselves, and deny they do it. At least that is the message I get from Terminator 1 & 2, Aliens (in a way), Titanic, and Avatar. It seems to have metaphorical common ground, although I may be mistaken.

I agree with Dave Allen, it is romanticized, but I am sure you don't disagree. There is a slight hypocrisy to it, using all that money and all the technology, essentially the products of our own molestation of nature, to create a tribute to nature...

I would say it is hypocritical, at the same time, to denounce it completely for that reason alone. For we are all hypocrites, and we all romanticize what corporations and technology do for us. We also are all in some form of denial or another, and as a society, in America, that can afford to make and view that movie (even in 3D), in denial about the externalized costs that business and technology bring with it.

Hello Bmcreider and thank you for your response and I agree but to be more precise we destroy each other in that we ignore what is the entire human potential in lieu of the technological short cuts we devise. There are most definitely beneficial uses of technology indeed, but in this insane profit structure we have now and have always had, the desire to obtain that which is rare and use that as a bargaining chip to control others is the root problem when the real rarity is the unique individual and not allowing that which each and everyone one of us are to come forth. When we apply that rarity to anything else that can be obtained and place value on it and use that to define an individuals worth, because it is rare and not enough to go around we "strangle ourselves"!

In AVATAR Cameron actually used the word "Pandora", a word that has been around for a while and "her box". In our hubris and curiosity we were destined to discover and to do that we had to invade and in that process we find things that we have no idea of what they are and why they are there. So we apply our own reasons. Sometimes just because they are rare only and we devise ways to create a utility for them without knowing what we have "gotten ourselves into". Once we realize we shouldn't have open "that box", the difficult part is shutting it again. Laparoscopic surgery is our attempt to do just that. When we invade an enclosed ecosystem we "disturb" it and it ceases to be that what n it was before that invasion. If left alone it will return to it "stellar/pristine" condition by itself. The sad part is WE can help this happen, and we don't, not in all constructs where this applies. And there are many. Cameron did an excellent job in encapsulating many of them but not all of them.

What pissed me off is the way some try to avoid the issue of the complexity we have caused by applying erroneous anaglogy's such a "worms in eyes" to divert real thought in addressing all the ways we are culpable and how we can help in those other contructs we have erroneously created in our ignorance as it applies to all those things we have "invaded". Those who have profited the most will be the ones that yell the loudest. No doubt!

Just like all notions of God. Because we apply utility to that we don't know that god is, we find our own reasons. Because we don't know all that god is we create "evil" and fail to understand what "live" is.



If I am not mistaken this statement is not what you intended. I think what you meant to say was "I am sure you don't agree"; and that would have been accurate. The was nothing romantic about AVATAR like there was in TITANIC. If you want to call the paraplegic Marine's natural innate desire to adapt to the purity that was Pandora, undisturbed, then yes it was. He feel in love with "it" and the people that were a part of "it" sacrificing himself in the process and healed himself in the process at the same time. I think that is what we are doing; sacrificing what we have innately seeking what we could have eternally. If you noted in the movie, there were no "old" people. When people are able to be who they innately are and share that with others in the environment both share, a synergy develops and friction subsides and erosion lessens and life is extended free to grow, not rust, age and die.



The object BMC is to reach as many people as you can to reiterate an old theme that it seems must be pounded in. The appeal is we know it is the truth, we just have a difficult time admitting it. I think rather than use the term romanticize, rationalize is more appropriate. We have the ability to create excuses to do the damnedest things. In that degree you are absolutely correct. Rationalization is the keystone that we provide that enables us to keep from killing ourselves. The sad part is in those rationalizations we are doing just that. Avoiding issues just prolongs the inevitable and in that the quality of life goes along with it.

I agree the 3-D and the technology used was a come on. But it achieve Cameron's objective. It kept the subject alive in ways that if it didn't have all the bells and whistles it would not have succeeded. Cameron is in a unique situation in that he does not have to bow to the dictates of "hollywood" as to what he can and cannot put out there. Though he does have to consider the backlash in this politically correct venue and to do that as successfully as Cameron does illustrates his awareness of this fact and the expertise of his thinking and overall mind set.

Romanticism was utilized in TITANIC. That was the come on and again it cost unprecedented millions to recreate that event with any measure of authenticity. What he did was clearly illustrate a more important truth of the relationship between the have's and the have nots. Something else that is also rationalized away. TERMINATOR was a prophetic attempt at visualizing the long term affects of what the extreme of trans-humanism could offer. THE MATRIX is a continuation of that theme though that was not a Cameron Project. Here is a portion of an essay I borrowed from another site: (Why we call them "website" is because many of them are full of spiders, ha!) That just means to observe truth you have wade though the ambiguous words we use ambiguously to get at it, ha! The art of using a lot of words that say nothing (Sokal's Hoax).

[CENTER] "Connections and contrasts exist between both The Matrix and The Terminator. These texts deal with themes of conspiracy, paranoia, the loss of privacy and the dissolution of human society in favour of a technology that has become supreme in its own right. Characters, settings, conflicts, and allusions are used extensively throughout both The Terminator and The Matrix to shape meaning about one possible dysotopic future. By imagining a dysotopic future we are alerted to the ethical and moral implications that are constantly changing social structures, always under continual sway by developments in technology. Both The Terminator and The Matrix maintain a similar theme, humans have lost out to artificial intelligence, which, soon after having been invented, has quickly become empowered and has taken control of itself at the expense of human society. The implication seems to be that two different sentient, intelligent types of beings cannot possibly share this world together, one has to go, and it is inevitably the carbon-based humans which end up as the inferior life form in both texts. The two worlds however, are inevitably saved by the power of love, between Kyle and Sarah, and Neo and Trinity".
[/CENTER]

In AVATAR, as in DANCES WITH WOLVES, the protagonist elected to adopt the ways of that enclosed ecosystem that was depicted as the "native american". The problem here is there is no such thing as any "race" being perfect and to pick one will just piss off the rest, ha. In AVATAR, Cameron created his own world and called it Pandora with is own indigenous Navi. (Short for native, I would assume) Imagine that, ha! He had to spend millions to create the bells and whistles that would keep the subject alive and illustrate what so many have tried, keeping in mind he had to satisfy so many and not step on any toes and piss any particular people off. That's a tremendous feat in and of it self and to do that, in my opinion was an altruistic expense that had to be utilized. Many will identify that as a double standard but in this case it was necessary. Cameron had the money and in my opinion spent it wisely. It is a shame we have to incur such an expense to identify a truth. I am curious to see what he does with the money he makes on this venture. I am sure a sequel will come out and let's hope it offers more precise solutions on what it is we need to do to "close Pandora's box" rather than just identify the problems we have incurred by opening it. (?)

Thanks for your comments and your discussion, unlike others who only hit and run. That seems the only thing they know how to do. Hummph!!

William

In regards to this, I can see your point. I even watched Insurrection two nights ago. It is a rather simple story, but, it goes along these lines. There are many views out there about technology, aren't there? On one end you have a small number of people who want to live as "natural" as possible, and that would mean no philosophy forum, and there are those who think our own mind can create new technology to solve every problem.

I am caught somewhere in between, like most people if they think about it. I grew up as a computer nerd going to LAN parties, then I got proficient at cars, all of my peers (incl. me) have played/play video games, watch movies, use the internet, etc. Have all of these technological achievements, and the job necessary to afford them, made us all better people, or worse? There are many ways to argue for or against it, it just depends what your objectives are. We live longer, but some might say, what for, when in a pessimistic view of technology - all we do is watch TV and eat processed food, aka twinkies .




Many would argue that in the case of surgery alone, the body is better off afterward. Whatever injury is sustained in surgical procedure is apparently worth the benefits for a lot of people. Now, the real problem I see with all technology, is not the technology itself, but the circumstances in which it is applied. C sections are a good example, IMHO. Women, it appears, have far too many voluntary, scheduled c sections just so they know when, exactly, that baby will be born. Of course, avoiding "complications" of natural labor, and in a lot of cases a malpractice suit, and the pain of labor, is a benefit to the woman as well. However, there are many unintended consequences of this. Some even go so far to say that, in general, the mother doesn't form the same bond with her child since she didn't go through the struggle to bring it into the world naturally.



Regarding the worms, I think the poster may have just been trying to illustrate that it's not as "black and white" as nature is beautiful perfection, and technology / humanity is evil. But I don't think you meant that, and I see your point. For our technological way of living, others do pay a price. Nature included, but people as well. "E waste" in China is an example, an easy one. The middle east and oil is probably the biggest one.



Of course the navi, and the movie, are fictional. I know these movies have to make a black and white case such as this to try to get a point across and/or make some money...but...do we really think we are the only conscious beings in the universe that have brought ourselves to near annihilation out of our own volition? I believe this could be a common theme among conscious beings, wherever any others may preside. With a consciousness we have the ability to get bored, and we need something to do, so we invent linear systems of growth in different areas. Those linear systems run into limits of resources, and like, in the movie, and in real life, we will invade a people to get what's under their feet. Surely, this plague of consciousness has to effect other species on other planets, yes?



Rationalization is true. We do this on an individual level every 5 minutes it seems, and anyone who says they don't rationalize some things are lying. The funny thing is, as you say, we don't seem to think we rationalize as a society or a country or any kind of group setting. We are like sheep, or wolves in some instances, but pack animals none the less. They have proven this peer pressure sort of thing before. Most of us don't want to know the truth, or express it, or seek it, blah blah, we just want to fit in. We are social animals before we are intelligent ones, no doubt about it. And if fitting in means supporting a war or getting a Facebook, or smoking cigarettes, or binge drinking, or whatever, most of us subconsciously comply without any conscious analyzing.

In regards to the last part of your post, I think that is true about those movies. The themes they carry, that is. Love does save the day, in most any story, but also, it seems, in real life. It sounds like hippie BS to many I am sure, but I would like to hear something else you would live or die for more than love. Love of country is BS, love of some political scheme, some stupid war, etc is all BS. But if you truly love a friend, a family member, a child, a significant other - what takes value over that?