Both of these ideas raise interesting issues about what "modular" means, and if this is an important idea. The name and the product are catchy and interesting, so I think it is worth figuring why this concept has arrived now, and what it may lead to. This even has some implications for studies of mind that trying to do some serious empirical science into the nature of the brain/mind by understanding the architecture. This is a pretty hot field of research, so it's nice to see some terms that fit into scholarly papers and fancy academic books being applied and marketed. I just hope this hits it. Judging by the recent attention given to the Mac Mini and recent advances in wearable and implantable computing devices this is at least going to becoming even more interesting discussion in the coming months and years.
"Basically, if you don't like these movies you are not intellectual enough."
(note: I've yet to see Revolutions (for shame). This is a general statement on the previous comment and these sorts of critiques en masse.)
This is an outright misreading and imposition of your interpretation of what was said. The original comment did not refer to people who didn't like the films and then claim its opacity was a downer - it refers to people who, in their discussions and opinions, clearly missed out on various levels of philosophical banter, multi-faceted dialogues and actions, and so on.
Your criticism, and then the unqualified lambasting of "Reloaded" demonstrate a huge problem with many critiques of the Matrix trilogy. People seem to impose various pre-existing notions and conditions to situations that they are mostly or entirely ignorant of. If there are deep academic and philosophical references in the film, why is it wrong to point out that many of the under-educated, uninitiated masses will not catch on? How many laymen are steeped in Baudrillard and Buddhism? How many seats at each showing are filled by cognitive scientists? It's not arrogance or defensiveness; its simply a matter of people being exposed to certain concepts that, while to me and many others are fundamental, most people today are completely ignorant to.
Further, it is opinions and outlooks such as this one that relegate discourse of things like "the Matrix" to a nasty political arena. The world is hardly as black and white as some of these critics, throughout the discussion, would like. A series that has commanded so much cultural attention and intense effort from a great many talented people deserves, at the very least, to be considered in an objective, somewhat academic light. I look forward to seeing Revolutions, and judging it as a piece of art made by artists whose previous work I greatly enjoyed (is there any/.er who can honestly talk smack about Bound? Aside from the need for more clutch scenes...). As such, I am saddened, and perhaps a bit concerned (with the work) to see so few thoughtful, analytical critiques. So much gut, knee jerk reaction, and canned critiques. its as though some of the most potent ideas in the films were better absorbed by the seats than the people in them...
I do like to think of the internet as an extension, and not just through junk mail and porn. Constant access to such a mass of information is a paradigm shift in many ways (duh), but particularly in terms of how one can view human intelligence. I believe a clever philosopher wrote a book about it. I like the notion of the constant access expanding our mental capacities by orders of magnitude. Something like google news, just by virtue of displaying thousands of sources, gives us modern types a capacity for world-knowledge that could barely even be imagined pre-information age. The question is, then, what will all this access allow us (and our minds) to become? A global brain? (Fringe) Academia looks like its finally becoming pertinent again. Through the web, no less, which I do believe is a potential source for so-called "deep knowledge", simply by allowing such little things as hypertext writing to be instantly accessible, or multi-faceted real or near-real time discussion (such as this one). So what's next? It's a bother that my glasses are still so clear...
Slashdot Mirror
Both of these ideas raise interesting issues about what "modular" means, and if this is an important idea. The name and the product are catchy and interesting, so I think it is worth figuring why this concept has arrived now, and what it may lead to. This even has some implications for studies of mind that trying to do some serious empirical science into the nature of the brain/mind by understanding the architecture. This is a pretty hot field of research, so it's nice to see some terms that fit into scholarly papers and fancy academic books being applied and marketed. I just hope this hits it. Judging by the recent attention given to the Mac Mini and recent advances in wearable and implantable computing devices this is at least going to becoming even more interesting discussion in the coming months and years.
Your criticism, and then the unqualified lambasting of "Reloaded" demonstrate a huge problem with many critiques of the Matrix trilogy. People seem to impose various pre-existing notions and conditions to situations that they are mostly or entirely ignorant of. If there are deep academic and philosophical references in the film, why is it wrong to point out that many of the under-educated, uninitiated masses will not catch on? How many laymen are steeped in Baudrillard and Buddhism? How many seats at each showing are filled by cognitive scientists? It's not arrogance or defensiveness; its simply a matter of people being exposed to certain concepts that, while to me and many others are fundamental, most people today are completely ignorant to.
Further, it is opinions and outlooks such as this one that relegate discourse of things like "the Matrix" to a nasty political arena. The world is hardly as black and white as some of these critics, throughout the discussion, would like. A series that has commanded so much cultural attention and intense effort from a great many talented people deserves, at the very least, to be considered in an objective, somewhat academic light. I look forward to seeing Revolutions, and judging it as a piece of art made by artists whose previous work I greatly enjoyed (is there any /.er who can honestly talk smack about Bound? Aside from the need for more clutch scenes...). As such, I am saddened, and perhaps a bit concerned (with the work) to see so few thoughtful, analytical critiques. So much gut, knee jerk reaction, and canned critiques. its as though some of the most potent ideas in the films were better absorbed by the seats than the people in them...
I do like to think of the internet as an extension, and not just through junk mail and porn. Constant access to such a mass of information is a paradigm shift in many ways (duh), but particularly in terms of how one can view human intelligence. I believe a clever philosopher wrote a book about it. I like the notion of the constant access expanding our mental capacities by orders of magnitude. Something like google news, just by virtue of displaying thousands of sources, gives us modern types a capacity for world-knowledge that could barely even be imagined pre-information age. The question is, then, what will all this access allow us (and our minds) to become? A global brain? (Fringe) Academia looks like its finally becoming pertinent again. Through the web, no less, which I do believe is a potential source for so-called "deep knowledge", simply by allowing such little things as hypertext writing to be instantly accessible, or multi-faceted real or near-real time discussion (such as this one). So what's next? It's a bother that my glasses are still so clear...