In the last blog, I came to the only conclusion possible for me about universal morality - that it must adhere to the golden rule, to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. We might say, then, that morality is all about relationships, and that is what the startling movie, "Could Atlas," was about - that relationships carry forth through all time and make our reality at any given moment. It is more complicated than that, however.
It was difficult to follow at first, as we had missed the first 45 minutes, but since the movie was three hours long, that didn't keep us from grasping it over the long run. In a nutshell, the script follows the lives of several people through various scenarios throughout time, recognizing multiple replays of personalities under very different historical conditions - from the South of the Slave era, to the 1970's, to the present, and to two different futures, one of a highly technical but failing civilization, and another of a world in shambles after a monumental collapse. In some instances, people meant to get together are thwarted by exterior obstacles or there own timidity. In other times, the relationships work out. There is in the progression of time a progression of personalities, as if our heroes are learning from past lives to finally get it right. And even though the sequences take place in different times and different cultures, we see the same morality played out - the development of heroism, of sacrificing one's place in society or even one's life for others. It is, in this respect, an enactment of the Golden Rule.
But in many ways it isn't. In each scenario there are the bad guys, truly evil people who we wish to be killed, and who often are, but who often also remain victorious - at "present." To rattle them off, the slaver loses his contract and his wealth through the spiritual revelation of another; the gay composer commits suicide after killing a usurious man of wealth in 19th century England who was blackmailing him; a reporter in the 1970's kills evil agents of an evil corporation, and then brings the company down through news exposure of their villainy; an old man in our time escapes an old folks home he was tricked into going, having Big Nurse and company beaten by wild-eyed Scotsmen - and then taking up with the woman he had loved in his youth; rebels fight against a super-tech totalitarian society that is manufacturing clones for food; and a post-apocalyptic man is helped by a woman from the stars (a human, descendant of an earlier high-tech society) to kill his barbarian oppressors and leave for a beatific home on another planet.
As far as I could tell through the make-up (Tom Hanks was often nearly unrecognizable), all the good guys remained good, and the bad, bad. We come to the nut of the movie's philosophy when a renegade clone speaks as the rebellion against the high-tech oppressors roars from explosions and gunshots and death: there is no "right order" that must be maintained because those in power claim it should be; rather, humans exist only insofar as their relationship with others. There is no other existence; we make our reality based on these relationships alone, and they are absolutely plastic.
Given the other scenarios, we understand, however, that there is an ultimate good: non-usurious relationships - that is, relationships based on love and mutual respect, from the family unit up through government. To reach this utopia, it is often necessary to kill the oppressor. This is not,then, a movie about passivism, but about overcoming social impediments to achieve this utopia, this world of individual freedom couched in an atmosphere of universal equality. It is then not a movie about absolute social relativism, or one that is anti-capitalistic or anti-West. It carries a message that most Americans would agree with - fight for the right, for freedom and human dignity.
We cannot take this work as a work of realism, but as a parable. I will not criticize, then, the particulars. But it does open up the discussion about universal morality. The great prophets and sages gave us the Golden Rule, while the writers of this movie give us another: have the courage to fight against the social norms or powers that be for freedom and dignity.
By comparison, both might be seen to have flaws in the modern context. It is 9/11, the anniversary of that act of evil by Muslim extremists; but by the law of the movie, were they evil? Didn't they sacrifice their lives to free their own "good guys" from hegemonic Western sacrilege and oppression? There are, indeed, those on the political left who voiced this position from the beginning. We might say that their Islamic state would oppress, but they would counter that the secular forces of monetary advancement not only oppresses physically, but spiritually. Certainly, we have hit a glitch in the movie's armor.
And yet, if we turn to the Golden Rule, we see that it cannot fight oppression. It would make for a beautiful world if everyone were to abide by it. But take one handful of power-seekers among a world of kindness, and the power-seekers would have their slaves, their unequal wealth, then jealousy and war. We would be where we are now. And the society would make the rules to perpetuate itself, at least at first. Morality would be ruled by the self-interest of the oppressor, as it was in the movie. But isn't the morality of the movie, too, ruled by self-interest? Doesn't it advocate for violence to suit one's idea of justice? Could not this justice be restorative - in the end, vengeance-based? Without another moral platform, that of forgiveness, it certainly would be.
Where does this leave us? As we lurch into another war in the Mideast, it is more than abstract thinking. Our enemies are absolutists; to successfully fight them, we, too, must have a strong sense of the right. But we see oppression in our own system and often believe that this, our Western system, is less than good. Many advocate revolution, just as the movie tells us to fight oppression, even unto death wherever we see it. But if we turned to the Golden Rule, it is very clear what would happen - ISIS would indeed be flying their revolutionary black flag from the roof of the White House.
Perhaps the suicide of my acquaintance, spoken of in the last blog, gives us a lesson: first of all, forgive yourself; treat yourself as you would like to be treated by others, as if you were good and worthy. Then, move from a firm center out to the world. Our nation's rules are built on a foundation of individual respect, and we can change those that came after based on this consideration, not with vengeance, but with an idea towards reconciliation. From this base, we could firmly reject those forces that would work to weaken this foundation.
However, I am not wise enough, nor do I have the space to articulate a greater code for a better society. It is, rather, something for us to ponder. Morality may be a system of behavior that is necessary to clear our thinking enough to begin to reach for God, yes, and that is ultimately the most important aspect; but it also creates winners and losers in this world. One that is too passive in tone leads to annihilation, just as one that is too aggressive and repressive. There is a right way, I believe, and it is of paramount importance that we of the free nations come to agree on this and stand together. Frustratingly, the great religions give us a number of sound basis, but some, like Christianity, lack the worldliness that is a necessary ingredient for survival - unless, that is, we are more than our relationships; unless we are something eternal and real by itself. Perhaps it is in finding this center, this soul, where we might find the solution. FK
It was difficult to follow at first, as we had missed the first 45 minutes, but since the movie was three hours long, that didn't keep us from grasping it over the long run. In a nutshell, the script follows the lives of several people through various scenarios throughout time, recognizing multiple replays of personalities under very different historical conditions - from the South of the Slave era, to the 1970's, to the present, and to two different futures, one of a highly technical but failing civilization, and another of a world in shambles after a monumental collapse. In some instances, people meant to get together are thwarted by exterior obstacles or there own timidity. In other times, the relationships work out. There is in the progression of time a progression of personalities, as if our heroes are learning from past lives to finally get it right. And even though the sequences take place in different times and different cultures, we see the same morality played out - the development of heroism, of sacrificing one's place in society or even one's life for others. It is, in this respect, an enactment of the Golden Rule.
But in many ways it isn't. In each scenario there are the bad guys, truly evil people who we wish to be killed, and who often are, but who often also remain victorious - at "present." To rattle them off, the slaver loses his contract and his wealth through the spiritual revelation of another; the gay composer commits suicide after killing a usurious man of wealth in 19th century England who was blackmailing him; a reporter in the 1970's kills evil agents of an evil corporation, and then brings the company down through news exposure of their villainy; an old man in our time escapes an old folks home he was tricked into going, having Big Nurse and company beaten by wild-eyed Scotsmen - and then taking up with the woman he had loved in his youth; rebels fight against a super-tech totalitarian society that is manufacturing clones for food; and a post-apocalyptic man is helped by a woman from the stars (a human, descendant of an earlier high-tech society) to kill his barbarian oppressors and leave for a beatific home on another planet.
As far as I could tell through the make-up (Tom Hanks was often nearly unrecognizable), all the good guys remained good, and the bad, bad. We come to the nut of the movie's philosophy when a renegade clone speaks as the rebellion against the high-tech oppressors roars from explosions and gunshots and death: there is no "right order" that must be maintained because those in power claim it should be; rather, humans exist only insofar as their relationship with others. There is no other existence; we make our reality based on these relationships alone, and they are absolutely plastic.
Given the other scenarios, we understand, however, that there is an ultimate good: non-usurious relationships - that is, relationships based on love and mutual respect, from the family unit up through government. To reach this utopia, it is often necessary to kill the oppressor. This is not,then, a movie about passivism, but about overcoming social impediments to achieve this utopia, this world of individual freedom couched in an atmosphere of universal equality. It is then not a movie about absolute social relativism, or one that is anti-capitalistic or anti-West. It carries a message that most Americans would agree with - fight for the right, for freedom and human dignity.
We cannot take this work as a work of realism, but as a parable. I will not criticize, then, the particulars. But it does open up the discussion about universal morality. The great prophets and sages gave us the Golden Rule, while the writers of this movie give us another: have the courage to fight against the social norms or powers that be for freedom and dignity.
By comparison, both might be seen to have flaws in the modern context. It is 9/11, the anniversary of that act of evil by Muslim extremists; but by the law of the movie, were they evil? Didn't they sacrifice their lives to free their own "good guys" from hegemonic Western sacrilege and oppression? There are, indeed, those on the political left who voiced this position from the beginning. We might say that their Islamic state would oppress, but they would counter that the secular forces of monetary advancement not only oppresses physically, but spiritually. Certainly, we have hit a glitch in the movie's armor.
And yet, if we turn to the Golden Rule, we see that it cannot fight oppression. It would make for a beautiful world if everyone were to abide by it. But take one handful of power-seekers among a world of kindness, and the power-seekers would have their slaves, their unequal wealth, then jealousy and war. We would be where we are now. And the society would make the rules to perpetuate itself, at least at first. Morality would be ruled by the self-interest of the oppressor, as it was in the movie. But isn't the morality of the movie, too, ruled by self-interest? Doesn't it advocate for violence to suit one's idea of justice? Could not this justice be restorative - in the end, vengeance-based? Without another moral platform, that of forgiveness, it certainly would be.
Where does this leave us? As we lurch into another war in the Mideast, it is more than abstract thinking. Our enemies are absolutists; to successfully fight them, we, too, must have a strong sense of the right. But we see oppression in our own system and often believe that this, our Western system, is less than good. Many advocate revolution, just as the movie tells us to fight oppression, even unto death wherever we see it. But if we turned to the Golden Rule, it is very clear what would happen - ISIS would indeed be flying their revolutionary black flag from the roof of the White House.
Perhaps the suicide of my acquaintance, spoken of in the last blog, gives us a lesson: first of all, forgive yourself; treat yourself as you would like to be treated by others, as if you were good and worthy. Then, move from a firm center out to the world. Our nation's rules are built on a foundation of individual respect, and we can change those that came after based on this consideration, not with vengeance, but with an idea towards reconciliation. From this base, we could firmly reject those forces that would work to weaken this foundation.
However, I am not wise enough, nor do I have the space to articulate a greater code for a better society. It is, rather, something for us to ponder. Morality may be a system of behavior that is necessary to clear our thinking enough to begin to reach for God, yes, and that is ultimately the most important aspect; but it also creates winners and losers in this world. One that is too passive in tone leads to annihilation, just as one that is too aggressive and repressive. There is a right way, I believe, and it is of paramount importance that we of the free nations come to agree on this and stand together. Frustratingly, the great religions give us a number of sound basis, but some, like Christianity, lack the worldliness that is a necessary ingredient for survival - unless, that is, we are more than our relationships; unless we are something eternal and real by itself. Perhaps it is in finding this center, this soul, where we might find the solution. FK
RSS Feed