Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2001: A Space Odyssey

Options
  • 29-08-2011 11:31am
    #1
    Obelisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭


    Since its premiere in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey has been analyzed and interpreted by multitudes of people ranging from professional movie critics to amateur writers and science fiction fans & others. Who here has seen it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPovs1XqZY


    Considered a classic, some people claim that the film carries a profound esoteric message intended only for a select few. The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation. Kubrick stated:
    You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    chin_grin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,808 ✭✭✭✭chin_grin


    Film forum perhaps?


  • Options
    #3
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Considered a classic, some people claim that the film carries a profound esoteric message intended only for a select few. The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation.
    Most serious films carry profound esoteric messages, and are open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation. If anyone is interested in this type of thing, there are courses you can do and tonnes of books and websites about this stuff. I took two courses on cinema when I was in college (I thought it would be easy! :o) and it really does help you appreciate the art of cinema*.

    *which I would distinguish from the fun of movies: e.g 2001 Space Oddyssey is a work of art in film, Star Wars is a fun movie.


  • Options
    #4
    Obelisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Most serious films carry profound esoteric messages, and are open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation.

    It's certainly a work of art. Did you study the meaning of this film? The symbology etc...


  • Options
    #5
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Obelisk wrote: »
    It's certainly a work of art. Did you study the meaning of this film? The symbology etc...

    I didn't study this film - watched it many years back though. Kubrick was behind the look and feel of the film, but Arthur C. Clarke wrote the story - if you are interested in a CT aspect, you might want to read some of his stuff and perhaps a bit about him too.


  • Options
    #6
    Obelisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Arthur C. Clarke wrote the story

    It is my understanding that they both collaborated on the story, but Clarke definitely played a major part. In any case they were created in unison, with the book being released after the film. Apparently both were high level masons...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Obelisk wrote: »
    Apparently both were high level masons...
    No, they weren't.
    Arthur C. Clarke was an atheist and therefore couldn't have been a freemason.


  • Options
    #8
    Obelisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    I did say high level notice. Have you seen the film?


  • Options
    #9
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Obelisk wrote: »
    I did say high level notice. Have you seen the film?

    Yes I have seen the film and read the book, and the short story both were based on.

    And why would it make a difference if they were "high level"?
    To be a freemason you have to believe in a higher power. Clarke vocally did not.


  • Options
    #10
    Obelisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes I have seen the film and read the book, and the short story both were based on.

    I take it you aware then of the symbolic meaning of the film...


  • Options
    #11
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »
    To be a freemason you have to believe in a higher power. Clarke vocally did not.

    Are you sure?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_religion


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Emiko wrote: »
    Are you sure?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke#On_religion

    Yes. Fairly sure.
    In 2000, Clarke told the Sri Lankan newspaper, The Island, "I don't believe in God or an afterlife,"[67] and he identified himself as an atheist.[68]


  • Options
    #13
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes. Fairly sure.

    "Any path to knowledge is a path to God—or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use"

    Kind of odd that they appear in the same paragraph.

    That's wiki-editing for you, I suppose.

    Edit; "I do not believe in God, but I do not disbelieve in her either."

    He appears to have been a bit of a joker on the subject.


  • Options
    #14
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Emiko wrote: »
    "Any path to knowledge is a path to God—or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use"

    Kind of odd that they appear in the same paragraph.

    That's wiki-editing for you, I suppose.

    I'm not sure how much clearer a dude could have been than saying "I don't believe in God."

    But are you now claiming that someone has edited the article to include that quote when Clarke had never said it?


  • Options
    #15
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »

    But are you now claiming that someone has edited the article to include that quote when Clarke had never said it?

    There you go with your presumptions again.
    In a live interview on CNN on 31 December 1999, Arthur C. Clarke was asked if he felt people should do more to recognize God's hand in the creation of all things in the natural world. Clarke responded that he doesn't believe God controls or creates things, except at the very beginning of the universe. This is a Deist position. Many of Clarke's novels grapple with theological issues, and seem to present god-like forces or beings and life after death. Yet, in his autobiography, and in The Making of Kubrick's 2001, Clarke says that he is an atheist (http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/atheistcelebs/pg5.html#g; viewed 15 January 2004). Celebatheists.com reports (28-May-01) refers to a reader's report that in a CNN interview when Clarke was asked if he believed in God, he replied, "I do not believe in God, but I do not disbelieve in her either." (http://www.celebatheists.com/entries/atheist_6.html#5; viewed 15 January 2004)


  • Options
    #16
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Emiko wrote: »
    There you go with your presumptions again.

    So then what was your point about wiki editing exactly?

    Do you agree that he stated clearly and unambiguously that he did not believe in God and identified himself as an atheist as evidenced by the same article you posted up?


  • Options
    #17
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then what was your point about wiki editing exactly?

    Do you agree that he stated clearly and unambiguously that he did not believe in God and identified himself as an atheist as evidenced by the same article you posted up?
    I agree.


  • Options
    #18
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Emiko wrote: »
    I agree.
    So then, since he was an atheist, how could he have been a freemason?


  • Options
    #19
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then, since he was an atheist, how could he have been a freemason?

    He also made Deist and agnostic statements.

    So far I can't rule anything out as far as his beliefs are concerned.


  • Options
    #20
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Obelisk wrote: »
    I take it you aware then of the symbolic meaning of the film...

    I'm aware of some of the meanings some people take away.

    But I'm sure you're referring to the alleged freemason symbolism which I don't believe exist in the film or book and wouldn't make sense as neither Clarke or kKubrick were masons.


  • Options
    #21
    Spacedog
    Registered Users Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭Spacedog


    Seen 2001 on the bigscreen in london, it was balls to the wall awesome. the visuals the music are bid and loud, perfect cinema experience.

    as for the meaning, for me: the spaceman touches monolith, starts trippin balls, gets turned to a bubble baby, fuckin deadly!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Emiko wrote: »
    He also made Deist and agnostic statements.

    So far I can't rule anything out as far as his beliefs are concerned.

    No, he made statements that you think sound Deist.
    Agnosticism isn't a separate opinion to atheism as in it is a position about whether or not you can "know" if God exists or not.
    Hence you can be an agnostic atheist, as most atheists are, including myself.

    We do have several quotes or Clarke both explicitly saying that he didn't believe in God and explicitly identifies himself as an atheist. (all from links you posted.)
    Not one indicates, explicitly or otherwise, that he was a Deist.

    Now since he did state clearly that he was an atheist and did not believe in a higher power, how could he have been a freemason?


  • Options
    #23
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »
    Agnosticism isn't a separate opinion to atheism as in it is a position about whether or not you can "know" if God exists or not.
    Hence you can be an agnostic atheist, as most atheists are, including myself.

    I'm an agnostic, but I'm not an athiest.
    We do have several quotes or Clarke both explicitly saying that he didn't believe in God and explicitly identifies himself as an atheist. (all from links you posted.)
    Not one indicates, explicitly or otherwise, that he was a Deist.

    "In a live interview on CNN on 31 December 1999, Arthur C. Clarke was asked if he felt people should do more to recognize God's hand in the creation of all things in the natural world. Clarke responded that he doesn't believe God controls or creates things, except at the very beginning of the universe. This is a Deist position."
    Now since he did state clearly that he was an atheist and did not believe in a higher power, how could he have been a freemason?

    "Any path to knowledge is a path to God—or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use"...a belief in that reality, or higher power, would be sufficient for membership of the Freemasons.

    Perhaps he became atheist later in life and then dispensed with the Freemasons, by which time 2001 had already been written.

    Who knows?

    I can't rule any of these possibilities out. It would be against the tenets of scepticism


  • Options
    #24
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Emiko wrote: »
    I'm an agnostic, but I'm not an athiest.
    Good for you. Did I say you couldn't be? You wouldn't be making presumptions would you?
    Emiko wrote: »
    "In a live interview on CNN on 31 December 1999, Arthur C. Clarke was asked if he felt people should do more to recognize God's hand in the creation of all things in the natural world. Clarke responded that he doesn't believe God controls or creates things, except at the very beginning of the universe. This is a Deist position."
    But that's not a quote form Clarke is it?

    I'm using direct, explict quotes from the man himself, you are relying on third hand interpretations.
    So again, I'm not sure how much clearer he could have been then to have said "I don't believe in God"...
    Emiko wrote: »
    "Any path to knowledge is a path to God—or Reality, whichever word one prefers to use"...a belief in that reality, or higher power, would be sufficient for membership of the Freemasons.
    Ah ok, so he joined a slightly less than strict lodge that let him join despite being a atheist, yet somehow he was observant enough to litter his most famous work with their symbology?
    That makes sense alright...
    Emiko wrote: »
    Perhaps he became atheist later in life and then dispensed with the Freemasons, by which time 2001 had already been written.

    Who knows?

    I can't rule any of these possibilities out. It would be against the tenets of scepticism
    Or you know, the most likely explanation...


  • Options
    #25
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »
    Good for you.
    cheers.
    Did I say you couldn't be?
    No, I didn't say you couldn't.
    You wouldn't be making presumptions would you?
    Perish the thought.
    But that's not a quote form Clarke is it?
    It does say he said it in an interview with CNN, which would be direct enough I suppose.
    Ah ok, so he joined a slightly less than strict lodge that let him join despite being a atheist, yet somehow he was observant enough to litter his most famous work with their symbology?
    That makes sense alright...

    So it's impossible that he had some sort of belief in a higher power, joined the Freemasons, and then by the year 2000 when he made his atheist quote, he no longer believed in God and was therefore no longer a Freemason?
    Or you know, the most likely explanation...

    Which is?


  • Options
    #26
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Emiko wrote: »
    It does say he said it in an interview with CNN, which would be direct enough I suppose.
    So then what exactly is it he said?
    You haven't posted the quote or even a link to the interview.
    Emiko wrote: »
    So it's impossible that he had some sort of belief in a higher power, joined the Freemasons, and then by the year 2000 when he made his atheist quote, he no longer believed in God and was therefore no longer a Freemason?
    It's possible, but not supported by evidence and is not what Clarke said he believed.
    Emiko wrote: »
    Which is?
    That Clarke wasn't a freemason.


  • Options
    #27
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then what exactly is it he said?
    You haven't posted the quote or even a link to the interview.

    Post 15

    It's possible, but not supported by evidence and is not what Clarke said he believed.
    I was just musing on his beliefs. I don't know if there's any other evidence he was a Freemason.
    That Clarke wasn't a freemason.

    It's another possibility, I suppose.


  • Options
    #28
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Emiko wrote: »
    Post 15
    Doesn't have a link to the video or contain a direct quote from Clarke.
    Emiko wrote: »
    I was just musing on his beliefs. I don't know if there's any other evidence he was a Freemason.

    It's another possibility, I suppose.
    And given that there is no evidence at all that he was a mason, him not being a mason is the most likely possibility.


  • Options
    #29
    Emiko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    King Mob wrote: »
    Doesn't have a link to the video or contain a direct quote from Clarke.

    I can't find the interview.

    A nice quote from him here at about 6:27, though.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cQI1dRvYvk

    And given that there is no evidence at all that he was a mason, him not being a mason is the most likely possibility.
    I haven't looked into it, so I'll refrain from commenting.


  • Options
    #30
    afrodub
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭afrodub


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, they weren't.
    Arthur C. Clarke was an atheist and therefore couldn't have been a freemason.


    That is both interesting and very surprising info that he was Not a freemason.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Obelisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 456 ✭✭Obelisk


    Getting back on topic- the esoteric meaning of the film...
    Bill Cooper's explanation (from his Mystery Babylon series) of the symbology in the opening sequence of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gO_eeluHE4


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uavEsP4VUvc


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBV4b_ZXpNA


    Interesting. :cool:


Advertisement