Man of Steel: Hope, Freedom, and Trust - Part 1 of 2

Man of Steel: Hope, Freedom, and Trust

Whatever your feelings regarding Zack Snyder’s Superman reboot Man of Steel, it must be unequivocally stated that it is far and away the most ambitious superhero movie ever created. The movie attempts with varying degrees of success to symbolically tell the grand epic of the foremost and first superhero of modern times, which it does spectacularly despite its weaknesses. That being said, and all bias (I am the biggest Superman fan of all-time) aside, I can honestly say that it is the greatest superhero movie of all time. As is common in the visual and thematic storytelling of comic books, Man of Steel featured several wonderful broad stroke thematic threads running from the beginning through to the end. Man of Steel differs from every single superhero movie and in particular from the Dark Knight Trilogy in this regard in that themes weren't specifically and laboriously explained through dialogue. That particular narrative format worked great for the Dark Knight series (though the final act is largely concerned with themes rather than lengthy exposition) but definitely lends itself better to the the detective thriller genre than the visual thematic comic book format. Man of Steel succeeds brilliantly as a genuine comic book epic in this regard in a way that no other comic book movie has. 

 A few days ago I had a conversation with a friend about Man of Steel wherein I stated just what I did above that it is the greatest superhero movie of all time. My friend responded like most of you probably did or will, with incredulity. I proceeded to tell my friend exactly why I think Man of Steel is the greatest superhero movie of all time, an analysis to which she responded positively. Maybe like her you will be persuaded of the very possibility that I have suggested.

The Man of Steel’s story-telling deals almost exclusively in the usage of visual and metaphorical symbolism to convey its central themes. Several themes that I specifically noticed and responded to during and after the movie include the concepts of hope, fear, uncertainty, war, privacy, freedom, transcendent reality, choice, freedom, and trust. While the film is not perfect it is the first of the many superhero movies that have come before to so subtly, realistically, brutally, and honestly tell us what the real life implications of super-heroism and super-villiany would or could be. Most importantly however, the movie mirrors real life ethical implications concerning notions of national security, the justifications (if any) for war, the ethical limits (if any) of surveillance, the very real threats of weapons of mass-destruction, and last but definitely not least importantly, the justification of and implementation of self-defense and defense of others. However, I believe that the movies most primal themes center on the concepts of hope, trust, and freedom. More specifically, what the concept of trust means in a day and age where it seems to be a rare commodity, whether in personal, societal, or institutional relationships.  Additionally, the movie raised the question of what hope means in a day and age where the constant drumming of war, discord, and disaster upset our fragile and seemingly ever-changing notions of peace, happiness, and security. Further, the movie raised the question of what freedom means in an age where scientific advancements and seemingly bedrock notions of human psychology threaten traditional conceptions of agency, accountability, and morality. Man of Steel is the most ambitious superhero movie to date for its attempt to make these themes relevant in modern times while not also trivializing them with sarcasm and overt campiness. It's not perfect, but the themes presented require a level of discernment not present in other superhero movies. Man of Steel is smart because the narrative doesn't tell you what to think every second of the movie, nor does it soften its attempted seriousness with needless comic wittiness. It presents a factual scenario that stays true to its own rules and therefore presents a realistic environment where the protagonist is left to make choices in a world where there is a right and wrong choice that does not rely on simplistic notions of black and white absolutist morality. What the Man of Steel has to say about choice and each of the other themes mentioned stands as a testament of its ambition and achievement as the comic book movie epic par excellence.

"It's not an "S," on my world it means "Hope.""

Hope

In the context of the grand sci-fi mythology unveiled during the opening sequence of Man of Steel we come to understand that all of the characters exist in a larger universe filled with intelligent life. Arthur C. Clark the famed science fiction novelist and theorist arguably said it best (as he understood it) regarding the concept of extra-terrestrial life that, “Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” The premise of Man of Steel offers a third hopeful possibility that embraces the terrifying nature of the two he envisioned. Science fiction as a genre runs the spectrum of storytelling based on the assumptions of strict empirical rationalism to those that embrace utter metaphysical spirituality. Both qualify as science fiction in the same sense that Clarke understood "magic" as being technology yet understood, internalized, and directed by its witnesses. Man of Steel traffics heavily in both of these conceptions visually, metaphorically, and literally. In this sense Superman or Kal-El (the name Superman is given by his birth parents, Jor-El, and Lara-Lor-Van) is a product of the convergence of the third option and possibility mentioned before, which  I will call "organic transcendence." Those familiar with LDS theology should be familiar with the concept, though not necessarily based on the name that I’ve given it. Simply put it is the idea that all matter whether seen or unseen is spiritual but matter which is more highly refined (and presumably invisible) can only be seen with greater discernment and ability. That which is available, readily understood, and sensed is not necessarily of a different quality but is simply less refined and is therefore more easily perceived. Science, and more specifically scientific theory, works exclusively in the realm of making that which is not understood understandable by way of logical reasoning and application of technological advancements that facilitate empirical discernment. A similar theoretical framework exists for that which is considered metaphysical or spiritual but requires discernment of the conceptual rather than the empirical. Literary, visual, or sensory displays of the conceptual are conveyed through symbolic representations found in metaphors, allegories, and typification. This is evidenced in Man of Steel by the symbolic meaning of the family crest of the House of El, the S shield symbol. During the highly symbolic first meeting/initiation scene Kal's biological father Jor-El explains Kal's origin and that their family crest means “Hope," in Kryptonian. 

The concept of giving or taking a name is arguably the most simple example and proof of the symbolic literacy with which we are endowed. We give and take on names on the basis of their symbolic imagery, that is that they inherently mean something or convey concepts and ideas. In Man of Steel this same conception is most evidenced by the fact that the planet Krypton (Kal-El's birthworld) is a technologically advanced society (to the point of achieving organic bio-engineering, space travel, and terraforming) whose empirical scientific achievements have led its people to the outlawing of natural births in favor of genetic bio-engineering. This, it is inferred, is for the purpose of population control, efficient allocation of resources, and the establishment of an orderly caste/class based society (interestingly during a flashback sequence Clark is shown reading Plato). Jor-El as the leading scientist of the planet advocated this system in the past but had since come to the conclusion that its implementation and continued use was the product of a degenerative and controlled society, one that underlied the cause of the imminent destruction of the planet. Scientific advancements like terraforming (making previously uninhabitable planets habitable) and genetic bio-engineering are intertwined in this sense as the cause and symptom of Krypton's destruction. Later this concept is brought home more pointedly when after attempting to find the key to Krypton’s genetic survival at the Kent farm home, one of General Zods Lieutenants hints at the guiding Kryptonian theoretical worldview to Kal during a fight in Smallville.  Faora-Ul a Kryptonian soldier produced by biogenetic engineering which funneled her into a a class system designed to create warriors physically manhandles Superman. She is clearly trained, dangerous, focused, in a way that Superman is not. Further, it can be inferred that this is so because she is instintinctively committed to the same cause which Zod professes he was created solely for, the survival of the Kryptonian race. In the penultimate scene of the movie Zod states that all of his actions no matter how violent are specifically to that end. This mindset is alluded to be a necessary product of their bioengineered design. During the fight with Fa-Ora and while brutally beating Superman she menaces that she is the product of "evolution," and that “if history has taught us anything, it is that evolution always wins.” Implicit in the story then, is the concept that evolution leads directly to this particular scientific advancement with all of its intended and unintended consequences. This concept is extremely relevant in our time where technocratic science relies heavily on the assumptions underlying Darwinian evolution. The technocratic elite go so far as to assert that strict empirical rationalism will lead to the inevitable merging of man and machine (bioengineering) in the next 35 years and that terraforming will eventually be the salvation of the human race (go listen to a few TED talks). This conceptual thematic idea is part of the reason why Jor-El's consciousness explains that Kal needed to learn what it meant to be human first. this is so he could discern between the possibilities that a Kryptonian type produces and how it could lead to a similar type of destruction on Earth. Faora is therefore an end result of the evolutionary design and is apparently faster, stronger, and better because she has been predetermined to be so by design.

"What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended? What if a child aspired to something greater? "

                                                                                                                                                                            

In contrast, Jor-El’s answer to the imminent destruction of Krypton was a return to a radical notion long since passed in his scientific age, that of a natural, organic live birth of a child. It is inferred and stated directly that organic live birth provides the most fundamental and important quality of humanity, (and apparently beyond) that of moral agency or choice. Intertwined with this concept is the notion of creationism, that self-contained organic creation is transcendent or superior to the empirical scientific assumptions underlying evolution. Jor-El’s family crest, the S-shield symbol means “Hope” and the live birth of his son Kal-El (who is later imprinted with the genetic DNA of all Kryptonian) sent to Earth as the last survivor of Krypton, is the symbolic message and physical embodiment of that Hope. The symbolic message is undeniably steeped in messianic imagery and symbolism but the actual meaning is far more pointed than most seem to understand. The message of Hope that Man of Steel revels in is that human interaction, organic, raw, and as yet undefined is undeniably essential, and fundamental as a human quality. Further, as explained by both Jor-El and Jonathan kent, organic transcendence is the necessary precursor to choice. It is only with that fundamentally simple state of being that meaning, morality, and true purpose can exist. Simply put, choice is what allows for consequence, and consequence is the basis for distinction between right or wrong. It is evident that Krypton had lost the quality and ability to sense beyond what was immediate for maintaining the status quo, so much that they could not see what was truly at stake and how much it had cost them. When Jor-El’s consciousness says to Kal-El, “You can save all of them,” he is referring to not only the empirical results based notion of cause and effect but also the spiritual transcendent notion and value of choice and moral agency. Additionally, when Faora says that evolution always wins, she is specifically referring to the idea that Kal-El and his father’s notion of organic creationism is inferior both physically and spiritually. In this sense salvation is not only a metaphysical concept but also a literal physical clash of ideas and worldviews. In Man of Steel Kal-El represents the ideal of transcendent creationism, that a being from another planet understands and embodies the dangers that unfettered scientific so-called progressivism has on individuals and society as a whole. Jor-El's last plea to Kal is that he will be the bridge between the two peoples and that he will show them a better way.

 

"You're not just anyone. One day, you're going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world." 

Freedom

The debate rages on in the university psychology classes about which factor is supremely formative in human development, either nature or nurture. After coming out of the university programming system, it is undeniable that no one has the complete answer. The only answer that is legitimately backed by studies, authority, and reason, is that there are too many factors to say for sure. One subject, however, that you will not find (or find little on) in the psychology books is the concept of free will and what if any great affects or problems it poses to the discipline. Man of Steel attempts to engage in the debate but ultimately settles on the importance of the concept of free will (choice) and like real life and the implications of choice in real life, leaves a somewhat complex and perhaps unsatisfying picture of what it entails. However, some of the greatest moments in the movie are those that show the early life and development of Clark. In nearly all of the appropriately interceding flashback sequences we are shown that Clark is an outsider as a result of the onset of his powers. In one particular sequence young Clark starts to develop his super sensory abilities during an elementary classroom discussion of Kansas history. We are shown his reaction as all of his senses become heightened in what is apparently a first instance. He responds to it with fear and uncertainty. As a child coming to grips with his maturation his reaction to hearing diverse and numerous sounds while the muscular and cardiovascular systems of his fellow classmates are revealed to him causes him to flee the classroom and take refuge in a storage room. His reaction leads to alienation by his classmates. Particularly interesting, his reaction and response called to mind the actions and seeming response of special children, specifically those with Autism. Clark in this version of Superman is an individual struggling to come to grips with his differences and place in a world hostile to differences. However, what is most profound about these flashback sequences are the words of wisdom, comfort, and understanding that come from loving, modest, and humble parents. If such things as families and good parents are ideal for the proper development of children then there was no one better for Clark than Jonathan and Martha Kent. The Superman mythos has always understood and championed the concept that children always need good parents. In every flashback sequence Jonathan and Martha are there for Clark in each of the circumstances he finds himself in, to comfort him when experiencing pain and fear, providing simple unsullied truths, and coping mechanisms to deal with the problem at hand and which later inform the man. His goodly parents are there to help him come to understand who he is at the same time that he is able and ready to understand it. His goodly parents are there to help him understand the consequences of his actions. His goodly parents are there to teach him that he is valuable and is on earth for a reason and that it is up to him to find that reason. His goodly parents allow him to make his own decisions (with advice) for better or worse but are there with him to deal with the aftermath. His goodly parents are there to teach him that all situations require judgment and discernment. His goodly parents are there to teach him that there is a time for patience and a time for action. His goodly parents are there for him to teach him that fighting bullies generally does not solve anything. His goodly parents teach him that sacrifice is the ultimate form of love. It is from this particular environment that the Man of Steel comes from which allows him a level of moral discernment that is both flexible as it is certain. 

In contrast to the concept of nurture, Man of Steel attempts to show that genetic inheritance does matter, in that Kal-El is not only a product of his environment but a literal genetic offspring of a superman and superwoman in a galaxy far, far, away. Lois Lane hones in on this aspect of Superman’s character as she is first introduced to him at the grave of his adopted father. The conversation centers around her desire to tell the world about him and what the implications of the idea that we are not alone in the universe will have. Kal-El is not so sure that it is the right time based on the wisdom his adopted father Jonathan imparted and sacrificed his life for, that the world would reject such a being out of fear. She suggests that eventually someone else will find out who he is as she has and that the only way to stop that from happening is if he stops helping people altogether. She senses correctly that this is not an option for him and they are left at an impasse until he explains himself further. The idea that this suggests is that Kal’s sense of duty to help others is a quality that is innate. We see this alluded to many times throughout the movie as comparisons are made to Kal and his father Jor-El. In one particular flashback sequence Clark saves a bus full of children from drowning and is later slightly scolded by his adopted father for it. While many have disliked this conception of Jonathan Kent, I believe it is used specifically to show that Kal’s innate goodness is in him as a result of genetic inheritance. The movie draws heavily upon messianic Christic symbolism for this point as well, as we are shown Clark as a fisherman, going about doing good, helping people in miraculous ways, in almost near secret. Those familiar with the Savior's childhood know that he eschewed the idea that his true father was a carpenter. It is in Clark’s DNA to help others. The seeming clash of nature and nurture comes in particular in the flashback sequence where Jonathan suggests that Clark "maybe" should have let the other children die to protect his secret, that is the need to protect oneself for a higher purpose, or to act on one’s own instinct and predisposition. However, as I suggested a third way above, the issue is ultimately resolved by the advice that when the time is right Clark will need to choose the kind of man he will be. The situation inevitably comes that presents Clark with the choice he was prepared for and he makes it completely of his own free will, not because or despite nature or nurture, but as a result of the experiences, wisdom and maturity it gave to him. This allowed a truly free choice in the matter. Clark goes on to make several important choices throughout the remainder of the movie that will be the subject of the next entry however, we see just how important freedom to choose is by the purposeful sacrifice of Jonathan Kent to preserve Clark’s secret until the right time, until his son had the time, the experience, the maturity, and the purpose to step out into the light as a symbol of hope and trust.

 

"My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me... out of fear. He was convinced that the world wasn't ready. What do you think? "

. . . to be continued.

Iron Man 3: Blow-Back, The Military-Industrial Complex, and Drone Warfare Disinformation

Iron Man 3: Blow-back, the Military-Industrial Complex, and Drone Warfare Disinformation

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to see Iron Man 3 in all its 3D IMAX glory and can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a huge comic book connoisseur (nerd). I have been so ever since I cracked open that box of comics in the basement of my parents’ home. I clearly remember reading Superman, Batman, Spider-man, and last but not least Iron Man. In particular the stories that I enjoyed most as a youngster were those about Iron Man and his arch nemesis Ultron. Unfortunately, Ultron has not been featured in any of the recent Iron Man movies as he is one of the lesser known enemies of Iron Man and the Avengers. Hopefully, someday we’ll get to see him make an appearance in the movies. However, enough reminiscing about my eternal inability to grow up and back to my feeble attempt at persuading you nonetheless that I have.

Iron Man 3 at its core is about sacrifice, the sacrifice that creates or defines heroes. Those who have been following the story of Iron Man as told through the movie versions recognize this particular thread running through the entire trilogy. Tony Stark is the CEO and son of the namesake of Stark Industries, the leading arms manufacturing firm in the United States and arguably the world of the Marvel Universe (think Lockheed Martin).  After coming face to face directly with the destructive product of his corporation’s creation (bomb shrapnel to the chest) he has a change of heart (literally) and dons the Iron Man technology to stop domestic and apparently foreign threats. All three of the stories tease the prospects of the various foreign threats extant in the Marvel Universe in favor of focusing on the white collar and political intrigue involved in arms manufacturing technology and the wars that are perpetuated or perhaps more fittingly sustained thereby. Whatever viewpoint you subscribe to the problem of war seems to be somewhat of a chicken and egg problem. However, it is important for analytical purposes to start somewhere and for all intents and purposes it seems that the writers of the Iron Man saga chose to focus on the evils of corporate arms manufacturing. Much of the context that supports such a story is assumed and we’re dropped in to the heat of the action, much like our current situation, devoid of historical understanding of the means and modes of our modern day war landscape. Regardless, the movie has some definite themes to discuss and we’ll now turn to a few I picked up while watching it.

Blow Back

 The third Iron Man operates on the same principle as Tony Stark proclaims from the beginning in true semiotic fashion, “A famous man once said we all create our own demons,” truly this movie sees its purpose as speaking rather directly (or indirectly?) at the war on terror  and in particular the concept of “blow back.” As a counterterrorist expert explained, blow-back is “the term of art for terrorists’ responses to government action against them. For example, if in response to the killing of a terrorist leader in a targeted killing, terrorists perform a suicide bombing, then that attack is called blow-back.” Further, he explains that blow back is, “a preferred modus operandi because it demonstrates to the three audiences described above (the swayed, the swayables, and non-swayables) that aggressive government action is an ineffective counterterrorism policy, and that a political response to terrorist demands (what others might call capitulation) is the preferred course.”  In a less technical sense then blow –back is simply the natural unfolding results of the law of cause and effect. Of course this isn’t causality in the strict sense, as individual actors joining together by more or less conscious decisions reap the fruits of what they sow. This is exactly what Tony Stark’s existential dilemma is in the third movie as all his previous decisions come to a head. These decisions include: his decision to create and implant in himself the Iron Man Technology; his decision to out himself as Iron Man; his decision to sacrifice his life to save New York; and his decision 14 years earlier to ignore aspiring weapons and medical research possibilities. More specifically, he ignores and humiliates Aldrich Killian and Maya Hansen who both have promising research ideas the latter plant limb regeneration technology and the former a weapons technology that enhances or upgrades the genetic abilities of people in general and soldiers in particular. 14 years later, Killian returns after being shamed by Stark and utilizes the research of Maya to create bio-tech upgraded humans. Interestingly, this type of research has been foreshadowed in the Iron Man stories from day one and is taken to the next level by Killian with the concept of implantable human Nano-biotechnology. Trans humanist researchers are well on their way to developing these very types of technologies and see the inevitable implementation of them within the next 32 years. ( See Ray Kurzweil, the Singularity, Trans humanism).  http://lifeboat.com/ex/transhumanist.technologies

I generally don't read much of what Glenn Beck writes but this article was easy to find and does cover the general issues regarding the ethical issues involved in trans humanism.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/06/transhumanist-movement-is-coming-the-ethical-dilemma-posed-by-rapidly-advancing-technology/

In Iron Man 3 the technology manifests itself in its invariably destructive propensities through the archetype of returning  “war on terror” soldiers.  These soldiers are volunteers as they have lost limbs in the theater of war but something with either the soldiers themselves or the technology is flawed and causes several of the soldiers to spontaneous combust, causing massive domestic damage, a la suicide bomber. This is rather interesting because many of the latest domestic terror threats have been committed by the veterans of the war on terror. Underlying that particular issue is an obvious reference to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other psychological disorders resulting from the realities and horrors of war. Many of the most recent domestic terror threat individuals had also been under psychological evaluation and were subscribed Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (“SSRI’s”) prior to their actions. While these medicines are fairly common for treatment of depression, anxiety, and personality disorders, they are coming under increasing scrutiny for their numerous dangerous side-effects including hallucinations, mania, and suicidal ideation. It is interesting that Iron Man 3 chose the specific archetypes of returning soldiers for not only medical and biological weapons research, but that those same individuals are the actors carrying out the domestic terror threat in the movie. Further, evidence of the allusion to these same problems is in the struggle of Tony Stark with anxiety from all the traumatic events of his past coming back to haunt him. The idea is that war has its costs and is a form of blow-back in both regards.

The Military Industrial Complex

The rest of the story focuses on a phony figurehead of an at first appearance legitimate foreign terror threat, the Mandarin as played by Ben Kingsley. 

 In the fictional Marvel Universe the Mandarin appears as a stand in for Osama Bin Laden, the terrorist par excellence. The only problem is, as Tony later finds out, that the Mandarin is actually an actor paid by Killian to drum up the war on terror and create “supply and demand” for the his arms manufacturing. This is and has always been the essence of the Military Industrial Complex that many former Presidents warned about.  J. Reuben Clark, a former BYU Law Professor and Elder in the LDS Church warned about the Military Industrial Complex and its seemingly limitless financial backing and interest in creating and sustaining warfare for profit. At one point he stated that the whole government had been subverted and was under the direct control of the Military Industrial Complex.  

  

Iron Man 3 glosses over these more interesting story aspects within its realm on the basis of Tony Starks (Robert Downey Jrs) seeming American charm, wit, sarcasm, and ultimately heroic character. In the first Iron Man, Stark upon having a change of heart after seeing the destructive propensity of his corporate cash cow first hand, denounces war, and loses his government contracts. In the second movie he comes before a Congressional Investigation Committee demanding he turn over the Iron Man technology in the name of National Defense. After making a mockery of the state of weapons technology in his absence and once again turning down the government’s demands he sarcastically proclaims, “I have singlehandedly privatized world peace,” drops the mic and is out. While in the context of the story this particular scene is awesome and plays to the strengths of the comic book worldview, Tony Stark’s character, and Robert Downey Jrs acting, it ultimately glosses over the reality that there is no real Tony Stark in the world we inhabit. In the real world the United States in 2011, spent $711 billion dollars on its defense budget. The total of all the worlds’ governments reached $1.29 trillion dollars or 74% of total world expenditures, according to Wikipedia.  Further the United States has been the world’s leading arms exporter for the last decade if not longer.  All of the most prominent weapons manufacturing corporations are located in the United States but nowhere do we hear of a character such as Tony Stark, who has effectively privatized world peace.  In the real world the private arms manufacturing corporation’s biggest clients has been and will always be governments as is evidenced by the statistics aforementioned.  Further there is no Iron Man Technology, a technology that only one man with fairly sound judgment possesses (though Tony sometimes seeks revenge). The major weapons of mass destruction that could be remotely considered similar to the power of the Iron Man technology are possessed by nearly every major world power with minor powers well on their way to obtaining. While there are no real allusions to nuclear warfare in the movies the stabilizing effect of the Iron Man technology on the world is apparent. Ultimately, however Tony is forced to give up the technology to a trusted military confidante in Colonel James Rhodes played by Terrance Howard (Iron Man) and Don Cheadle (Iron Man 2, 3). The use of the Iron Man Technology by both individuals further blurs the lines of reality on the issue that is secretly (not really?) at the heart of Iron Man 3-drone warfare.

Drone Warfare

The concept of drone warfare has increasingly become an issue of concern in the theater of foreign war, domestic security, privacy and constitutional law. I remember discussing the issue back in 2011 in my International Criminal Law class as part of the emerging counter terrorism paradigm under the Patriot Act. The discussions ultimately came down to the inevitable increased use of drone warfare and strategic targeted killings. Targeted killings are justified by governments on the basis that “the target is an illegal combatant who is suspected of either of having participated in terror attacks or ordered them to be carried out.” It is further premised on the basis that arresting the target presents an “extraordinary operational risk.” The concept of targeted killings therefore is at least in some sense theoretically distinct from assassination (though a political head could potentially be a target) and extra-judicial killing (summary execution when arrest is possible or on the basis of political or other disagreement) though the three could definitely coincide. One of the major criticisms of the current targeted killing paradigm is that there is no oversight to ensure that the targets are legitimate threats and even more fundamentally how those determinations are even made as well as the obvious due process issues. Additionally, as mentioned above the problem of blow-back has increasingly become a major theme as made popular by series like 24, Homeland, and numerous other movies.

In Iron Man 3 (and really the whole series) the theoretical principles and decision making parties are present in regard to the issue of drone warfare. But in Iron Man 3 the full realization of the possibilities of drone warfare come to full fruition. Right at the beginning of the movie Tony’s former drive Happy, played by the hilariously awesome Jon Favreau (the original director of Iron Man) becomes the head of Stark Industries under new CEO Pepper Potts (Starks girlfriend played by Gwyneth Paltrow). In a conversation about security threats he states, “the human element of human resources is our greatest point of vulnerability . . . we should start phasing it out immediately.”  Ridiculously prophetic in the next instance we find that one of those genetically enhanced soldiers has breached security and is the embodiment of the end game ideal of the trans humanist, complete melding of the human and the robotic, which in the actual climax of the film is the point, with Pepper Potts being infused with the new genetic formula that creates a super human who ultimately saves Tony and by extension makes his Iron Man suit irrelevant.

 From the government perspective, having now obtained the Iron Man Technology in the form of Colonel James Rhodes’ War Machine-rebranded as “Iron Patriot”-shows the ideal vision of drone warfare and in specific targeted killing. Iron Patriot like Iron Man is an idealist, a hero, and a cool character, but the difference between himself and Tony, like most soldiers, is that obedience to the chain of command is paramount. In this case the government gets the best of both worlds in the sense that Rhodey is portrayed as a man of character, honor, and discernment.  He’s Captain America for the twenty second century and has the armor design to prove it.

One thing here that strikes me about Rhodey from the comics as well as the movie iteration is that he is the type that would disobey a direct order if it violated his conscience and in putting forth this personification, the movie is smart (or rather predictable?). The hard questions then get glossed over on the basis of the characters positive traits as with Tony Stark. Iron Patriot is in this version of the story the perfect drone weapon, one that has the moral judgments of a human mixed with the technological firepower and precision of a machine. In one scene he bursts through the door of home in Pakistan where intelligence regarding the location of the Mandarin has led him. It happens to be nothing more than a normal home where several Pakistani men are gathered. A little later he bursts through the door of a sweatshop where Pakistani women are making “cheap software.” He derides military intelligence, “Unless the Mandarin’s next attack on the U.S. involves cheaply made software, I think you messed up again.” As he’s leaving he says to the women, “You’re free. If you weren’t before, Iron Patriot on the job. You’re welcome.”  The interesting thing about this is that Pakistan is generally recognized as one of our allies in the war on terror though contradicting stories arose out of the Bin Laden raid. More importantly though, Pakistan is a hot bed of terrorist activity and U.S. Intelligence operations since 1965 and has been one of the major theaters of experiment with drone warfare. I suppose it is fitting that this is the country that the writers chose to portray (though I was thinking it would be Libya). Whatever the case, the issue of national sovereignty is glossed over and the theme of “democracy” for all is perpetuated in this brief scene.

During the climax of the film and really at almost every pivotal action sequence we come to find out that Tony Stark is not actually inside the Iron Man suit but is off-site remotely controlling the suit or suits. Some of the more hilarious sequences involve Tony experimenting with the remote controlled drone technology which again glosses over the reality of this type of technology and its implementation today.

Tony explains to Rhodey during the final fight that he can’t wear one of the many suits Tony remotely calls because “they’re only coded to me.” This particular sequence reminded me of the GPS sonar cellphone tracking technology from the movie the Dark Knight. The parallels between Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are superficially striking and puzzled me over the weekend at their popularity with the masses. Anyone who knows me knows that I am the world’s biggest Superman fan. That doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate other superheroes but I just find that Batman and Iron Man are rather uninteresting contrary to popular belief. Superman has always represented the truly fantastical, the truly ideal, and the embodiment of true heroism as the first and greatest superhero, which is the point of comics. Batman and Iron Man are at best pragmatists and at worst nihilists in the final analysis. Regardless, the question that puzzled me over the weekend is why people are so attached to these two characters. Often the response is that they are “realistic” and “relatable.” I personally, am not the inheritor of billions of dollars, a weapons manufacturing corporation, or had my parents murdered in front of me. Further, I personally experience my life as meaningful, purposeful, and hopeful, not as dark, broody, or gritty. Further, the two most striking parallels about these men and the strange contradiction that their popularity is with the masses surrounds their inherited wealth, affluence, and influence. I guess people love rich white men of inherited money interests who establish and perpetuate monopolistic corporations.  It seems that today there is general shift away from that type of admiration, like for example Mitt Romney or Wall Street in general.  Let no one think me a Republican or a Democrat, as I like to not think of myself as an ideologue, but I find that parallel rather interesting given the shift in the political landscape to those who are represented as being men of the people (once again I’m not saying he is). In the comic book world Superman, while arguably a god, is definitely a man of the people, a blue collar newspaper man devoted to sticking up for the little guy and exposing corporate and criminal corruption, but that’s not “relatable,” . . . whatever. Anyway, in the Dark Knight Bruce Wayne secretly developed technology that allowed him to map the entire city through cell-phones and pinpoint the location of anyone. He used it in the climax of the film on the basis that it was necessary to find the domestic terrorist the Joker. The movie did a decent job of asking some of the hard questions, unlike, Iron Man 3 in the form of Lucius Fox’s hesitance to use such a machine. He wisely said, “that’s too much power for one man to have.” The privacy implications are astounding, and yet this is actually relatively close to the situation we now live in. Almost every cellphone has gps tracking, checking in, saved cloud data, and individual profile building propensities. The private corporations that use this information for advertising maintain fairly strict parameters of privacy for its patrons, but it is relatively easy for government officials (and perhaps private individuals) to obtain these profiles through the use of warrants, national security letters, and through outright violations. In the Dark Knight as well as Iron Man 3 these two real issues are front and center and are ultimately resolved without much if any discussion as to their legality, necessity, or morality. In both instances we’re only let into the inner workings of the richest men and corporations in the world because we’re sitting in the theater watching them decide what’s best for us. Otherwise there is no one there monitoring either of these characters and we’re ultimately supposed to trust them on the conclusory illogic that the ends justify the means. Both characters put fail-safes in their creations and ultimately destroy their weapons as we are led to believe a true hero would do. In the end then we are left with the notion that these controversial issues are not only in the hands of individuals and governments that use them benevolently and can be trusted conclusively but that they are actually necessary because of “bad guys,” even if we aren’t sure who the ultimate bad guy is. Overall, I enjoyed the movie but not as much as some of the other more recent superhero movies because of the blatant politicizing of the aforementioned issues. It was a lot of fun, a lot of explosions, cool extremis Iron Man armor, and great character representations by all involved.

Ben Kinsley’s turn as the Mandarin was priceless in its embracing of conspiracy theories of a controlled opposition. The reveal at least according to those theories is however really not all that far off. It would be fair to say that the themes running through the movie will continue to become more relevant given our current state of affairs and the conditioning affect that major movies have on the general populace.

Rise and Rise Again Until Lambs Become Lions

 

Over the past few days the poetic phrase “Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions,” has been the fascination of my subconscious musings. The poetic phrase more specifically comes from the 2010 reboot of Robin Hood starring Russell l Crowe. While I will not get into the specifics of what the phrase is intended to mean in the context of the movie itself, it is instructive to the analysis and conclusions I have preliminarily come to while pondering the phrase. As I thought about the phrase, I could not help but assess the symbolic meanings underlying the phrase as a whole, including its theological, metaphorical, and literal implications. I am just going to list some of the thoughts and connections that I have made in regard to the words and the symbols underlying them. First, the concept of “rising” has obvious and literal physical meanings, like for example, physically rising after falling down, or rising from a chair, but its use in poetic form suggests a deeper meaning than a simple pragmatic rendition of the words. Rising, in the context of the theological and liturgical has deep meta-physical (spiritual) connotations. In both the Eastern and Western traditions, rising refers to the liturgical concept of “ascension,” or “rebirth.” The concept of rising, ascension, and rebirth permeate metaphysical thematic depictions in art, religion, and the existential. These concepts are generally understood on a qualitative level of understanding, that is, we tend to “feel” or “experience” the meanings on a personal and collective level. In the religious context, ascension is a fundamental tenant of the eastern mystery religions, represented in the notions of attaining an enlightened state whether classified as achieving a state of Nirvana, or Moksa. However, one should not automatically equate the notions of ascension based on the outward similarities of the concept as they do indeed vary accordingly. In the Western tradition generally speaking, ascension is a product of and based on the condescension of divinity to the individual and collective rather than a strictly relative notion that Eastern traditions generally devolve to. In the Western tradition ascension, rebirth, and rising, have specific referents in and to the life of the Divine Master who makes it possible that his disciples can follow the same path to enlightenment. In the context of the Western tradition there are two literal fulfillments of the idea of rising and ascension. In the scriptural narrative the Lord rose from death following his crucifixion, in the same way as the eastern traditions mythology tells of the phoenix rising from the ashes of its own death, of its own power and will. This particular instance of rising, for the believer has specific and general implications of the deepest magnitude, that is that power over death resides in and with the Lord, and that death is a necessary step in the process of ascension.  After delivering the most profound mysteries (the gnosis) to his disciples during his 40 day ministry we read that the Lord ascended to the right hand of the Father. One of my favorite chapters of scripture has always been John 6. In that chapter the Lord feeds the multitude and teaches by way of analogy to both reveal and conceal the secrets of eternal life. He does so by way of metaphor, and analogy, referring to the Old Covenant made to the Israelites, and tying those modern Israelites to the fulfillment of prophecy. Further, he ties himself to the cosmic narrative as the author of life itself.

John 6: 58: “This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
⁵⁹ These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
⁶⁰ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
⁶¹ When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
⁶² What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
⁶³ It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
⁶⁴ But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
⁶⁵ And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
⁶⁶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
⁶⁷ Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
⁶⁸ Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”

 

Specifically, the Lord states that a time will come that he will ascend to his Father, and in fact he did, after completing the tasks of his earthly ministry. This same thematic narrative can be found in almost all forms of popular media. More recently, I have noticed this thematic symbolism in the movie, the Dark Knight Rises. It is particularly blatant as the concept of ascension is contained in the title itself. Looking at the narrative of the movie, it caused me to ask how in the context of the film is the Batman “rising.” For those who have ears to hear probably have already noticed that the Dark Knight Trilogy itself is an apocalyptic analogy ripped straight from the narrative of the Gospels. Bruce Wayne/Batman is ultimately the sacrificial savior of the people of Gotham city, and in effect “gives everything” to the people. The three major villains of the trilogy present themselves in the form of the biblical unholy trinity of Revelations, Daniel, and Ezekiel. Ras Al Ghul (the Demons Head) is representative of the head of the organization that is seeking to destroy the world (Gotham). He is the ultimate mastermind, the great manipulator and underlying cause of destruction in the fictional world of Batman. In the comics his symbol is that of the goat, which is the scriptural representative of Satan during the Day of Atonement ritual. The Joker represents the false prophet, more of a spiritual force of nature, rather than a physical threat. He is characterized as an unstoppable force, an agent of chaos, and the primary spiritual force that plays upon the soul and character of the city of Gotham. Bane and Talia Al Ghul from the Dark Knight Rises, round out the unholy trinity as the Beast and the Whore, the daughter of the Demons head, who rides upon (is supported by, foreshadowed by) the Beast. Bane comes to Gotham as a political and physical force, arising as it were from the depths of an abyss as the remnant of the league of shadows. He wreaks physical, and financial, havoc on the city of Gotham, and implements its overthrow and descent into chaos, lawlessness, and disorder, under the guise of egalitarianism. He represents a false system of governance, lawlessness, and brute physical force in implementing such a system, which is purportedly for the benefit of the people, but ultimately focused on their destruction. However, it isn’t until the end that it is revealed that Bane is not the mastermind behind the plot, but simply the hired muscle, indeed truly the beast. The true mastermind is Talia Al Ghul who represents the Whore of Babylon the true power behind the scenes whose ultimate goal is the destruction of the world in the name of her father. More tellingly, however are the forces that stand in opposition and with the savior/messianic character in Bruce Wayne. Alfred represents the Father, the moral force behind Bruce, his ultimate support and the voice that persuades him to “endure” the tragedies and hardships to save the city. Further, in the most perilous moment of the story, Alfred withdraws from Bruce and he is forced to fight the fight on his own. However, he is not ultimately alone as he has the help of Peter Foley, the police chief, who is brash and momentarily doubts until he sees the sign of the “savior” burning like a fire in the sky and leads the police force (believers) with courage until his death in the cause. Additionally, he has James Gordon, one of his most faithful partners engaged in the cause until the end, and one of the privileged few to witness the final sacrifice of Batman. Further, he has John Blake, arguably his most favorite and the most intuitive of his followers whose zeal for the cause of Batman leads him to abandon his work and stay behind and continue the work of the Batman. Also, he has in the end a faithful adversary turned follower in Selina Kyle (Catwoman) whom he trusts and gives a second chance despite her various sins and misdeeds, and who ultimately is blessed with direct and intimate knowledge of the rebirth of Bruce in the hereafter of the movie. Finally, last but certainly not least, is Lucius Fox, Bruce Wayne’s trusted CEO of Wayne Enterprises. He is charged with delivering and representing the message of Wayne Enterprises as a direct agent of Bruce Wayne and through his technological developments delivering the message of Batman. In the climax of the film, Bruce/Batman the son of Thomas Wayne the philanthropist and savior of Gotham before him, sacrifices himself to save the city. In the end we learn that Bruce is not dead, but alive, and through his sacrifice ascended to state of peace. This is what is meant by the Dark Knight Rising. It is a direct metaphor for the spiritual message of the sacrifice required to achieve immortality, ascension, and rebirth into a higher order.

Lambs

In art and metaphysical symbolism, animals are generally used as representations of their natural traits. These traits tell imply a deeper meaning concerning the subject of their application. In the Western tradition animals have been used as representatives as sacrificial instrumentalities, as clean or unclean, or as representative of positive or negative traits to emulate or discern.

Lambs are generally represented as being clean animals and as possessing the qualities of faithfulness, timidity, gentleness, compassion, and discipleship. Further they have been used to depict the characteristics of innocence, meekness, purity, patience, and humility. In a liturgical sense they are also indicative of sacrifice, obedience, and martyrdom. Moses referred to lambs and sheep as being clean animals (acceptable) is because they chewed their own cud and had cloven hooves. Cud chewing is symbolic of meditation on the words of Christ, continual study and pondering on the teachings of the prophets and man’s dependence on the divine will. Cloven hooves are symbolic of the concept that everything has its opposite and that there are always two paths, one leading to vice and one to virtue which require ethical distinction and proper actions. In a negative sense the symbolic representation of sheep is characterized as those who are unthinking, followers, blind, dumb, and simpleminded. While this distinction often might seem fitting it relies upon an unfounded assumption of rationalism, that is, that man without God can arrive at truth. This ignores the reality that man’s reasoning is limited by context, education, disobedience, false traditions, and his very own imperfections. Lambs therefore are more properly understood as those who are intellectually humble and look to the source of truth in all their endeavors.

Lions

In art and metaphysical symbolism, the Lion is depicted as the most noble of all the creatures almost certainly as a product of its natural divine and regal character. In history the Lion is the symbol of nobility and direct lineal descent of the divine birthright of kings. This no doubt stems from the birthright King of Kings who is the “the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David.” (Rev. 5:5).The biblical tribe of Judah is described from ancient times as possessing the “sceptre” of the “lawgiver.”(Gen. 49:9). This thematic notion permeates modern day symbolism as is evidenced in the movies The Lion King, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Robin Hood. In each of these movies Lions are recognized as rightful rulers with divine birthrights of kingship and power, indeed, “they shall walk after the Lord: he shall roar like a lion: when he shall roar, then the children shall tremble.” (Hosea 11:10). More specifically, lions anciently were symbolic of resurrection and conversion. This came from the observation of newborn lion pups. Newborn lion pups were once believed to be born dead, and only came alive when the father passed its breath upon the pup. This was symbolic as Christ breathing his essence (spirit) into his followers that awakened their spirits to the light of God. Further symbolic representations highlight the legend that a lion never closes its eyes when it sleeps, indicating intelligence, vigilance, and protection. Finally, lions are generally representative of strength, determination, courage, pride, and authority.

Eternal Progression

While I was thinking about the poem and pondering the symbolic representations of the concepts and traits inherent in the poem another poem came to mind. President Lorenzo Snow, in the spring of 1840, while listening to the explanation of a particular scripture by a friend had a revelation. He stated, “the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me – the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me . . . As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be.” Herein, lies the meaning of the former poem, that man, as a lamb subjects himself to the will of the father and eternal principles, he may rise beyond his current status and become much more. In particular the trait that I feel that the poem represents is self-mastery and self-government. Lions are the sovereigns of the animal kingdom and are representative of a life of certain divine authority by natural birthright, that is the right and authority to self-government.

Self-Mastery and Self-Government

Leonardo Da Vinci once said: “You will never have a greater or lesser dominion than that over yourself . . . the height of a man’s success is gauged by his self-mastery; the depth of his failure by his self-abandonment . . . and this law is the expression of eternal justice. He who cannot establish dominion over himself will have no dominion over others.”  Da Vinci was speaking primarily about leadership and the necessary prerequisite to leadership is self-mastery. Self-mastery implies moral standards as well as the willpower, determination, and action in support of it. The lamb provides ample symbolic allusion to the type of traits one needs to have to achieve self-mastery, first recognition of moral standards that stand outside of any subjective notion. This requires absolute humility, discipline, and submission of the will to the ultimate lion. This refers to the straight and narrow path which requires self-restraint and self-denial. This recognition stems directly from a lack of self-fulfillment, self-seeking, and self-interest. There is recognition as a sheep that there are limitations that such a worldview entails, but it is also a recognition of the natural state of man in relation to God and others, that is that all men have certain rights and responsibilities.

Rise and Rise Again Until Lambs Become Lions

It is the recognition of these rights and responsibilities that lead to emancipation from falsehood, independence from slavery, and liberty by law. It is from the position of correct principles that man is able to govern himself as taught by Joseph Smith. Self-mastery and self-government therefore are inextricably tied together as natural rights wherein nature’s creator “expects every man to do his duty; and when he fails the law urges him; or should he do too much; the same master rebukes him.” (Joseph Smith). It is in this state of being, the recognition of universal God-given rights, properly understood, submitted to, and adhered to as the lamb submits to its master, that men achieve self-mastery. Self-mastery is no more nor less than proper proactive exercise of moral agency. Men become free as they adhere to universal laws and act on the basis of truth rather than being acted upon and reacting to externalities. In this state of being, man goes from grace to grace (rebirth) until he obtains the mind of Christ and is blessed with enlightenment (ascension) and the mysteries of the kingdom. It is in this exalted state that man, in relation to his fellow man truly become sovereign, independent, and equal, as lambs that have all become lions.

Certainty, Discernment, and Analysis: Assessing Symbolism and Semiotics. Part 1.

Certainty, Discernment, and Analysis: Assessing Symbolism and Semiotics. Part 1.

“Those who pursue the approach of eternalism, of course, are not the authors of this superior—the only—approach to human problems. The scriptures tell of the true Designer and his premortal competency—of Jesus Christ and of his preeminence (not only as to his goodness but as to his brilliance): “For he is more intelligent than they all!” Jesus is not only the very best, he is the very brightest, and those who follow him have abundant assurance about the Shepherd who is leading them. Those who follow him soon realize what Peter realized at the time of a major defection among the disciples. When Jesus inquired of those who remained, “Will ye also go away?” Peter’s reply reflected one of the realities of the universe: “… Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68). - Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Eternalism v. Securalism.

Certainty

One of the major problems facing the modern day truth seeker is the ascertainment and justification of foundational assumptions, such that reliable, realistic, and relevant questions can be posed, discussed, and resolved. This problem, most simply, can be posed as the problem of “certainty” (i.e. how one can know anything at all). This area of inquiry has accumulated a vast amount of theory, research, and analysis over time and is arguably the question of the ages, and one that many feel is beyond human capability to grasp and answer in its entirety.

In our time this problem can be understood as man’s search for truth. Specifically, in the realm of philosophical theory, this area of inquiry is known as “epistemology.”  Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge and understanding. As a field of study it is concerned with the nature of and scope of knowledge, it questions what knowledge is, how one acquires knowledge, and the extent to which anything can be known. Those who engage in epistemological inquiry attempt to determine the distinctions between truth and belief and the justifications or lack thereof for both.

“Usually secularism does not err deliberately, nor can there be a denial about the need for the expertise or concern that are often brought to bear by sincere secularists. But the caveat—“the wisdom of man is foolishness”—includes not just man’s faulty tactical logic, but his tendency to proceed from erroneous basic and strategic assumptions. Having erred tragically with regard to those assumptions, it should be no surprise that conceptual cul-de-sacs are encountered so frequently by the well-intentioned.” -  Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Eternalism v. Secularism 

A former professor of mine helped to clarify the conceptual problems that this type of analysis presents and perhaps why such an inquiry is/or should be a fundamental requirement for all serious seekers of truth. The problem is known as the Turtles All the Way Down Dilemma. The basic premise of the dilemma is found in the infinite nature of the question “How do I know that it’s true,” as applied to any proof provided to support a prior truth claim. That is, we may provide “proof” to support an assertion of truth, but I can always ask of the supposed “proof,” the question, “how do I know that it’s true?”  The fictional story of the infinite turtles shows this problem.

Turtles All the Way Down

A great philosopher was engaged in a conversation with a scientist. The two discussed the possibility of knowledge and the limitless possibilities that man’s technical prowess and scientific power could attain. The philosopher asked the scientist, “On what basis do you think you can achieve all these things?” The scientist responded that he knew that he could because of the natural order that his scientific observation had displayed to him. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy, and that based on these observable facts, he could extrapolate the process and apply to all other areas of inquiries and achieve certainty on the same basis.  The philosopher responded “what you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.”  The scientist replied, “that is absurd, I know that is false.” The philosopher said in response, “how can you know that it is false, when you’re standing on it? Take a look for yourself and see.” The scientist walked to the edge of the world, and attempted to look underneath the world to see if a giant turtle was supporting it, but couldn’t get a good look from that position, so he stepped off the edge to get a better view. After taking a look, he responded with incredulity, “you are right! The world is supported by a giant turtle!” The philosopher smiling, replied, “how do you know? What are you standing to support your new position?” The scientist shocked and dismayed quickly looked down to see what he was standing on now that he had stepped off the surface of the earth to get a good look at its foundations. Starting to understand he replied, “I am standing on another turtle.” Before the philosopher could reply, the scientist said, “how do I know that it’s a turtle? Because it’s turtles all the way down!”

This problem presents a seeming paradox to the reasoning and understanding of man. Epistemologists have attempted to answer the problems presented by way of three options known as the Munchausen Trilemma. In attempting to ground oneself on a certain foundation, one has to either resort to circular argument, (i.e. we assume something to be true before offering proof and offer proof to prove what we’ve already assumed) regressive arguments, (i.e. each offer of proof requires further proof which we keep giving presumable forever) axiomatic argument (i.e. we accept universal precepts and proceed on the basis of their truth).

Most of us do not do enough critical analysis of the very foundational assumptions we make about the nature of reality, if any at all. Perhaps this is because we have accepted certain axioms as the basis for our particular beliefs, thought processes, and actions, so that we do not think we need to reassess our positions. Perhaps this is because we have become so immersed in a particular cultural, educational, religious, or social context in which certain ideas and concepts become accepted as “common sense.” The foregoing analysis however should provide a basis for at least a cursory analysis of the ideas that we have come to accept as “common sense.”  The foregoing analysis however, should suggest that even before we conduct that sort of overarching analysis, we should determine upon what foundation we are starting from, that is which turtle we are standing on. Additionally, the problems that this type of inquiry presents to the human mind should lead to an existential crisis, a questioning of all matters of a fundamental nature. Rene Descartes, the famous philosopher experienced a similar type of existential crisis that led him to doubt everything to find the proper basis for certainty. His journey of doubt and skepticism led him to declare, “Et Ergo Sum (i.e. I think therefore, I am).” Essentially, he attempted to find a basis for certain knowledge, and found his basis for certainty in the fact that he knew he was doubting (i.e. he was using his mind to reason and to think). I would assert that there lies an even more fundamental basis for certainty than man’s ability to reason, that there is another turtle underneath man’s ability to reason, that is, man’s ability to choose.

Human Moral Agency is the Basis for Obtaining Truth

I would assert that the most basic foundation for knowledge, understanding, and achieving certainty is found in the concept of human moral agency. Human agency is the notion that humans have free will, choices, or possibilities. Whatever humans do – however they think and behave – the notion of agency says that they could have acted or thought otherwise. 

The opposition to this worldview presents itself in the form of mechanistic materialism (i.e. that humans, their thoughts, and actions are the product of mechanistic forces, whether created by environmental or biological forces, the nature vs. nurture theory). In this sense human moral agency cannot truly be the basis for our thoughts, beliefs, and actions, as they are all subject to the conditions of the brain or other deterministic functions. If taken to an extreme position this assumption denies the actual possibility of true and meaningful human moral agency, the same sense that a boulder tumbling down the side of a hill has no choice in its present course but that which is determined by the laws of natural order. Humans do not experience their lives in this way, but as meaningful (or boring), satisfactory (or unsatisfactory), and purposeful (or unpurposeful) at various times and to various extents, but we all experience these feelings, states of being, and emotions universally.  The power to choose is the natural and eternal state of man and forms the basis for his ability to reason upon that which is presented to his mind, heart, body, that is, his very soul. In this sense that which man chooses to believe or disbelieve is a matter of choice.

“For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so . . . righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness, nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one . . . having . . . neither sense nor insensibility.” 2 Ne. 2:11.

Thus, man’s ability to reason in this life cannot be preeminently prior to his ability to choose because there would be nothing for man to reason about or between. However, these two seemingly contradictory concepts are co-eternal, but for the purposes of this analysis it makes sense to give preeminence to mans ability to choose because his reasoning must necessarily proceed from his basic assumptions (because of the veil) about the nature of reality.

The Two Narratives

“For the purpose of this brief discussion, eternalism is defined as that view of man and the universe which not only acknowledges, but exults in, the existence of a Heavenly Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who have authored and implemented a redeeming plan for mankind. Secularism is herein defined as that view of man and the universe which is essentially irreligious with regard to the existence of God and cosmic purpose for man.” – Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Eternalism v. Securalism

There are two narratives that one may freely choose from and that demand our discernment in the same sense that a judge adjudicates between two opposing arguments. In civil litigation two parties are engaged in a dispute about an alleged act or acts that have violated a purported right of the other party. The plaintiff accuses the defendant of an unlawful act and requests relief based on the violation. The defendant sets forth his defenses to the accusations and requests that he be released from liability. Both parties are essentially asking the finder of fact (the judge or jury) to determine the "truth of the matter" and make a decision based on that which is determined to be "the truth of the matter"(granted this is also always an approximation based on a number of evidentiary, legal, or factual factors).  This is in essence the calling that we are called to in this life, to be judges, to make determinations based on that which is presented to us as foundational assumptions that necessarily guide our reasoning, our determinations of that which is “proof,” convincing, persuasive, or determinative.

 The first narrative presented is founded in holy scrip and consists of the testimony (admissible) of men specifically called to be teachers of truth. These men testify on the basis of the knowledge that they have received through revelation, both meta-physical and physical, concerning the reality of God. These men have without equivocation testified of the nature of reality, its foundation, its assurances, its blessings, and the process one needs to be able to receive the sure word of prophecy (i.e. certainty) with regard to their truth claims.            

“For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?  . . . So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the world of God.” Rom. 10:13-14, 17.

“And now my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.” 2 Ne. 2:14.

The second narrative presented is founded in the understanding and reasoning of man that assumes the impossibility of obtaining knowledge about the meta-physical and at its core in fact denies the existence of the meta-physical. These truth claims are often “proven” and celebrated on the basis of the very same reasoning that denies them in the first place, man’s imperfections and limited reasoning. This narrative assumes certain definitions about what constitutes proof and necessarily excludes any type of “proof” to the contrary.  If followed to its logical conclusion, certainty can only be a relativistic certainty; bounded by the individual differences of those holding these positions (i.e. what applies to you cannot apply to me because we are different).

“Where, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one of the other.” 2 Ne. 2:16

Faith or Disbelief

“Whatever sense we make of this world, whatever value we place upon our lives and relationships, whatever meaning we ultimately give to our joys and agonies, must necessarily be a gesture of faith. Whether we consider the whole a product of impersonal cosmic forces, a malevolent deity, or a benevolent god, depends not on the evidence, but on what we choose, deliberately and consciously, to conclude from that evidence.”  - The God Who Weeps, How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life, Givens,Terryl and Fiona.

The two opposites about which we are able to reason and choose is between exercising faith (or disbelief) in one of the two narratives.

“The call to faith is a summons to engage the heart, to attune it to resonate in sympathy with principles and values and ideals that we devoutly hope are true and which we have reasonable but not certain grounds for believing to be true. There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore the more deliberate, and laden with personal vulnerability and investment. . . What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance." - The God Who Weeps, How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life, Givens,Terryl and Fiona.

Given the two divergent systems presented to us in more or less complete fashion, the fundamental issue then is the application of the requisite faith. In regard to the first system, faith, then is the substance of things hoped for more than it is the evidence of things seen or not seen.

“in nearly all the important transactions in life, indeed in all transactions whatever which have relation to the future, we have to take a leap in the dark, . . . to act upon very imperfect evidence . . . I believe it to be the same with religious belief . . . if we decide to leave the [questions] unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer that, too, is a choice; but whatever choice we make, we make it our own peril.” – James Stephen 

Without the requisite faith it is impossible for one to come unto God, as it is done on his terms and not our own. This type of faith is based on a foundational state of being, a foundational law, a willingness of belief, belief in the words of credible, sincere, and authorized witnesses.  When exercised according to this law, man is rewarded and receives a good report, and a more sure word, that is, certainty.

“And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 1 Cor. 2:4-5.

“Wherefore . . .  having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken. . .”(Jacob 4:6), until we have “faith no longer,” because we know, “nothing doubting.” Ether 3:19. 

What then is Truth?

Only the first narrative attempts to totalize the whole of existence into a thoroughgoing belief system. The second narrative essentially denies that possibility. As such, the first narrative must necessarily provide definitions, explanations, and rationales for its position. The first narrative asserts that truth is, “knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” D&C 93:24.  This is a statement of objective truth, that there is real versions of history, that things in and of themselves have meaning that require discernment, and that the future can be determined. However, truth is inextricably tied to man’s ability to choose and why it is prior (or rather co-eternal) to man’s reasoning, “Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light,” (D&C 93:13) because of “disobedience . . . and because of the tradition of their fathers.” D&C 93:39.  Here then are the two narratives represented categorically as light, and that which is based on the traditions of men.

Truth is therefore defined as that which is “light.” While there are easy symbolic representations inherent in this description, I would like to attempt to ground the idea of light as truth in a more fundamental way. Whether this “proves” the point is solely up to the reader and what he or she chooses to believe, but hopefully provides a sound basis for exploration of the idea of certainty.

Light as Truth

 Light as a quasi-physical entity has been defined by Wolfgang Pauli as “an excellent symbol for the source of energy of the collective unconscious.” Atom and Archetype, p. 14. Pauli goes on to say, that “The psyche . . . as a medium participates in both Spirit and Matter. I am convinced that it (the psyche) is partly of a material nature. The archetypes, for example, are Ideas ( in the Platonic sense) on the one hand, and yet are directly connected with physiological processes on the other; and in cases of synchronicity they are arrangers of physical circumstances, so that they can also be regarded as a characteristic of Matter (as the feature which imbues it with meaning).” Atom and Archetype, pp. 100-01. Essentially, Pauli is saying that physical atomic particles actually have an effect upon the mind, body, and soul (consciousness) of humans individually and collectively. Modern physics researchers are attempting to and seem certain that they are on the verge of finding the “God Particle.” Light is now technologically able to transmit and encode data and is the precise way in which we receive the information that encodes our minds, hearts and souls. Further, this idea is infused in the mystic religions of antiquity, especially the Bible, that reality is infused with divine energy and power, which functions as the essence, and meaning of things and which can be perceived. Regardless of the implications that physics researches attach to such a finding, it is interesting that sub-atomic particles are regarded by the LDS as the basis, substance, and essence of truth. It is even more compelling in that light is a measurable substance in all of its states, physical, figurative, hypothetical, and spiritual. (see also http://jaysanalysis.com/2012/12/04/light-and-the-feel-of-numbers/).

“The radioactive nucleus is an excellent symbol for the source of energy of the collective unconscious. It indicates that consciousness does not grow out of any activity that is inherent to it; rather, it is constantly being produced by an energy that comes from the depths of the unconscious and thus has been depicted in the forms of rays from time immemorial” Atom and Archetype, p. 14.

Assuming the basis of truth and certainty lies in the first narrative is solely an act of faith, faith upon the words of those who testify and witness of its certainty. That message is symbolically represented as light both in a metaphorical and literal sense. The message is therefore given “unto you . . . that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship. D&C 93:19.  Who is that the LDS worship in this regard? Light? Yes.

“Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John. This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom; Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his son – He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made.” D&C 88:3-7.

“And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space – The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of god who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.” D&C 88:11-3.

The message and faith of the ancients is nothing more or less than the witness and testimony of Jesus Christ. The message which they communicate is the identification of the source of certainty, understanding, knowledge and intelligence. Additionally the message they convey is about telling us how we are to worship.

“ . . . that which is governed by law is also preserved by law . . . That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself . . .cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment.” D&C 88:35.“All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.” D&C 88:39

“He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.” D&C 93:28

We are to worship according the law given, are not justified on any other basis, and if we do, we will know the truth of all things. This is done “according to the scriptures . . . the only sure foundation,” (Jacob 4:16) which foundation “is Christ, the Son of God.” Hel. 5:12.

In the first narrative then, certainty can only be attained based upon man’s choice to exercise faith in the testimony of witnesses, act upon the testimony as required by law, and certainty is achieved. Depending on the assumptions one makes about the nature of reality will therefore lead into differing systems of inquiry and analysis. The first requires an honest assessment of what can be known, what the basis for one’s current understanding is, and an assessment of the two narratives in light of what one purports to already know. The first narrative is therefore an experiment that can be tested but requires complete intellectual humility. The second narrative would require certainty first and a degree intellectual dishonesty (how can humans purport to know what they know as demonstrated by the turtle story) and is therefore categorically different and distinct. Discernment between the two systems of thought should therefore be relatively easy once we conduct the experiment.

According to the first narrative then, discernment is required, and the basis for that according to the law given will be the subject of the next blog entry, followed by several tools necessary for conducting analysis and discernment in all aspects of life.