Avatar

[Thales]

And this may be where we differ. IMO, they did demonstrate they were rational and the humans simply did not care.

They absolutely demonstrated high reasoning abilities. I think the whole Na'vi society was probably not realistic. It was a fantasy world.

[Grames]

Let's assume that the ID propagandist includes clear evidence in his story that the creator is supposed to symbolize God, without actually identifying him as such.

Should the absence of this explicit identification shield him from any accusations of mysticism? I address this question in more detail below.

I think both. There is, in external reality, nothing which has the property of being mystical. Therefore, any symbol of a supposed mystical phenomenon or being would in fact symbolize nothing in a sense. However, in evaluating the theme of a story, we cannot simply proceed as though the symbol didn't exist. It is still possible to identify that the story's creator intended to symbolize a (nonexistent) mystical thing (such as the Aslan symbol in Narnia). As I see it, our main point of contention is: given that the creator of a story makes no explicit reference to anything mystical, and attempts to provide non-mystical explanations for all phenomena he describes, and given on the other hand that there is clear indirect evidence in the story that the creator actively seeks to promote mysticism, can we call the story itself mystical? I say yes, because in the context of fiction, we must consider abstractions over the particular way in which these abstractions are concretized. In Avatar, I see Cameron as attempting to convey a mystical abstraction using at least superficially non-mystical concretes.

I would say it is not a proper standard to find symbolism by comparing the ideas in a fiction with external reality, that would be the kind of symbolism appropriate to a physics textbook. There are ideas which are false and they can be what is symbolized by various features of a story. I take this as a point of agreement.

Can indirect evidence be clear? Cameron's choice to remain within the genre of science fiction by showing how things work in a visual, concrete way necessarily invokes naturalism that contradicts his normative goals as stated behind the scenes and out of the movie. This is a very similar situation to how George Lucas grew uncomfortable with certain of his fans' preoccupation with the Force and sabotaged the mystical element of it by having the Force be the result of a pseudo-scientific cause (the midichlorians introduced in Ep. 1). Leaving their pro-mysticism evaluation as a separate issue, the fans that perceived this naturalism and were upset by it perceived rightly that the explanation did disrupt the mysticism. Because of the contradictory elements against mysticism (not to mention contradictions involved in taking the deliberately dumbed down humans as symbolizing reason), the "reason vs. mysticism" angle on understanding Avatar is much less justified than "technology vs. nature".

I won't conclude that "reason vs. mysticism" is wholly unjustified, but it cannot support the burden of being the single correct interpretation that damns the rest of us rubes for being blind to the obvious.

[Dante]

Offering to trade was a part of the process of discovering the nature of the Na'vi. When they arrived on the planet, they didn't know whether or not the Na'vi were rational beings. In order to find out, they tried treating them like rational beings to see if they reacted like rational beings. If they did, they would have recognized them as persons having rights. But if they didn't (as was the case in the movie, IMO), then the humans would conclude that there was no property owner there to take the offer.

I'm a bit confused as to why refusing to trade a particular item indicates a lack of rational faculty. On the contrary, evaluating the terms of a proposal and finding them lacking is something that can only be done by a rational being. The issue was simply that the value they placed on their home was higher than anything the humans could offer.

Is there any trade that you would accept for, say, your heart? Or your brain? Refusing all trade proposals concerning such a valued object doesn't indicate that one is incapable of living by trade, merely that one is too attached to the object in question. Being capable of trade doesn't mean that everything you own has a potential price.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

I would say it is not a proper standard to find symbolism by comparing the ideas in a fiction with external reality, that would be the kind of symbolism appropriate to a physics textbook.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you elaborate?

There are ideas which are false and they can be what is symbolized by various features of a story. I take this as a point of agreement.

Yes, I agree.

Because of the contradictory elements against mysticism (not to mention contradictions involved in taking the deliberately dumbed down humans as symbolizing reason), the "reason vs. mysticism" angle on understanding Avatar is much less justified than "technology vs. nature".

Oh, I think that "technology vs. nature" is the principle theme of Avatar. The reason vs. mysticism theme is not directly present in the film (I apologize if I was ambiguous about this earlier). However, choosing unexploited nature over technology does imply a rejection of reason, since reason is the tool for exploiting nature (and trading, of course, which relates to the more minor anti-capitalist theme), and is not needed otherwise. This is not directly adressed in the film, to be sure, and Cameron may not even understand it himself. In fact, the modern environmentalist movement constantly tries to reverse this relationship, claiming that reason is on their side.

That said, I do think (as I have been arguing) that the Eywa/biological network concept is a mystical element. It is not part of an explicit reason vs. mysticism theme, but is instead a mystical part of the technology vs. nature theme. That such an element exists in Avatar is not surprising, because there is no rational way to argue that humans would be better off abandoning technology and living in the forest. I realize that you disagree about this part of the film constituting mysticism. But perhaps mysticism isn't even the most precise term to use (I haven't been regarding such distinctions as important within the present context). How about New Age pseudoscience? What I cannot accept is that a mysterious "connection" goverened by some kind of collective planetary mind, characterized by mysterious glowing lights flowing through plants, and powered by the communal chanting of a primitive tribe constitutes a harmless piece of speculation about exobiology in the context of a film devoted to promoting environmentalism. Do you agree that there is something decidedly irrational here?

[Grames]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Could you elaborate?

The ideas in nonfiction should be evaluated on the basis of their correspondence with reality. Even understanding what the idea refers to requires consulting reality.

What I cannot accept is that a mysterious "connection" goverened by some kind of collective planetary mind, characterized by mysterious glowing lights flowing through plants, and powered by the communal chanting of a primitive tribe constitutes a harmless piece of speculation about exobiology in the context of a film devoted to promoting environmentalism. Do you agree that there is something decidedly irrational here?

The only mystery of the lights is due to their not being completely explained, not from their inherently mystical nature. What is suspicious is the careful selection and design of everything in order to throw Cameron's conclusions into the best possible light, even down to the lighting as you noted. The presentation is slanted and rings false, unlike the presention of Atlas Shrugs which might also seem superficially slanted by a similar method but is in fact insightful and true to the evolution and destruction of command economies strangled by bureaucracies.

[Capitalism Forever]

I'm a bit confused as to why refusing to trade a particular item indicates a lack of rational faculty.

It doesn't. Also, note that I am not saying the Na'vi necessarily lacked a rational faculty. The vicious thing about the movie is precisely that it shows the Na'vi as beings that had (or used to have) the potential for rationality, but threw it away in order to be "environmentally-friendly animals" rather than rational ones.

I maintain that the Na'vi did not just happen to refuse the particular offers they were made, but rejected all trade on principle. Now, why do I think this is the case?

Since the movie does not show the offers being made and the Na'vis' reaction, this is one area where we entirely have to rely on inference from what we know about what the Na'vi were intended to concretize.

The Na'vi were intended to concretize the enviromentalist ideal of "homo sapiens rejoining Nature." Nature is the sum of the metaphysically given: all that which is not a result of man using his conceptual faculty. "Rejoining" nature means renouncing your conceptual faculty, and rejecting the use of any products created by it. They had to reject anything the humans had to offer if they were to fulfill their function as poster children of the environmentalist movement.

It is often remarked that the movie's plot was totally predictable. The part where one of the characters explains that the Na'vi have been made all sorts of offers but turned down all of them is a prime example of this predictability; I found myself thinking, "Yes, it figures that they would turn down the offers--what else would you expect the heroes of a viro wet dream to do?"

Based on the above, this:

the value they placed on their home was higher than anything the humans could offer.

is true as stated, but less than the whole truth. The whole truth is that they valued the principle behind the home tree over the principle behind the things the humans offered. The principle behind the home tree is a mystical communion with nature and an elimination of one's "footprint" qua rational being; the principle behind the humans' offers is life qua man, by means of reason and the technology that it makes possible.

Is there any trade that you would accept for, say, your heart? Or your brain?

One thing I definitely wouldn't sell is my mind. That would be literally like selling myself, since it is my identifying characteristic, the thing that "makes me me." If I give up my mind, I have given up my life.

In the case of the Na'vi, it appears that the home tree, and the way of life that it is part of, plays the role of their identifying characteristic. What does that say about them?

[RationalBiker]

In the case of the Na'vi, it appears that the home tree, and the way of life that it is part of, plays the role of their identifying characteristic. What does that say about them?

It says that through the use of their rational capacity, they recognize the importance of the home tree to their lives, they were biologically ( not mystically ) connected to it.

In the same sense, I would never trade my ability to urinate or defecate because being able to perform those functions is vital to my survival. Despite the fact that those functions are vital to my survival, it doesn't redefine my nature as a rational being.

Asking the Na'vi to give up their connection to their home tree is analogous to me asking you to give up your biological ability to expel waste from your body. Somehow I think you would decline.

Edited May 28, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Capitalism Forever]

Asking the Na'vi to give up their connection to their home tree is analogous to me asking you to give up your biological ability to expel waste from your body. Somehow I think you would decline.

That is correct, of course, and it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that I define myself as a "waste-expelling animal" rather than a rational one.

But it would be a slightly different case, wouldn't it, if I refused to part with my Bible at any price, saying that it was my means of bonding with Jesus. Scientists could measure changes in my hormone levels and brain activity when I held the Bible--but would this really be proof that I was "biologically connected" to it? (Don't worry, I would still have rights in this scenario and you couldn't just take the Bible from me; the point is simply that the purported biological connection does not exist.)

[Thales]

It doesn't. Also, note that I am not saying the Na'vi necessarily lacked a rational faculty. The vicious thing about the movie is precisely that it shows the Na'vi as beings that had (or used to have) the potential for rationality, but threw it away in order to be "environmentally-friendly animals" rather than rational ones.

They had language, so they clearly were able to reason, but I believe they were meant to be an exemplar of how people should live and we know that people can't survive that way.

Btw, Cameron recently made a trip down to South America to hang with and support some primitive tribe and fight the building of a damn. So, there you see him thumbing his nose at human technology and progress in favor of the primitive. Reality Writ Large!

[Maximus]

The whole truth is that they valued the principle behind the home tree over the principle behind the things the humans offered. The principle behind the home tree is a mystical communion with nature and an elimination of one's "footprint" qua rational being; the principle behind the humans' offers is life qua man, by means of reason and the technology that it makes possible.

I think you are confusing the Home Tree with the Tree of Souls. The principle behind the human's efforts at trade were to coerce the Na'vi into moving so they could tear down the Home Tree and extract the Unobtainium from underneath. Technology is a result of the reasoning process, but the absence of a technologically based civilization does not necessarily indicate that a people are stagnant or in any way inferior. This is a viewpoint that relies on the proposition that progress is an upward, linear curve from barbarity to high civilization. Note that in tribal societies there are no prisons and practically non-existent crime.

One thing I definitely wouldn't sell is my mind. That would be literally like selling myself, since it is my identifying characteristic, the thing that "makes me me." If I give up my mind, I have given up my life.

In accepting the humans drugs, liquor and cheap plastic junk - none of which they had the infrastructure capable of replicating (becoming, then, dependent on the humans rather than self reliant), would have lowered them from a self sufficient people to the level of beggars. Look at what happened to Native Americans who were stripped of their dignity by reliance on trade with the Whites, the havoc it wreaked on the culture. Look at the current rates of alcoholism and drug addiction on the reservations.

That is why great men like Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull led a last ditch effort to preserve their people. They saw what was happening to their people after the contact with the White man's "superior" technology and trader culture - not to mention his religion.

In the case of the Na'vi, it appears that the home tree, and the way of life that it is part of, plays the role of their identifying characteristic. What does that say about them?

The Na'vi were still the Na'vi despite the loss of the Home Tree. The loss of the Tree of Souls, on the other hand, would have devastated their culture, which is why the Marine commander wanted to destroy it. That would have been a great evil.

[Thales]

Note that in tribal societies there are no prisons and practically non-existent crime.

No way. When, for example, the tribes in New Guinea kill and eat people because they believe they gain something from that person's soul, that's barbarism and a crime as against rational western societies.

Have you seen the movie Apocalypto? That was supposed to be an historically accurate portrayal of Indians.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

The ideas in nonfiction should be evaluated on the basis of their correspondence with reality. Even understanding what the idea refers to requires consulting reality.

I certainly agree with this. But what standard would you use for evaluating the ideas in fiction?

The only mystery of the lights is due to their not being completely explained, not from their inherently mystical nature.

It is not the lack of a complete explanation that I am faulting. Completely explaining any phenomenon would almost always be out of place in fiction. What I am faulting is the nature of the phenomenon described, given the theme of the film. I gather you agree that this aspect of the film was not an accidental detail (there aren't many accidental details in Avatar)? In that case, what would you say is the abstraction that this detail concretizes?

The presentation is slanted and rings false, unlike the presention of Atlas Shrugs which might also seem superficially slanted by a similar method but is in fact insightful and true to the evolution and destruction of command economies strangled by bureaucracies.

I think it is deeper than slanting. Both Atlas Shrugged and Avatar are romantic fiction, which use every concrete in their respective stories in order to represent the abstractions they seek to convey. Of course, AS is brilliantly written and conveys true and profound abstractions, while Avatar is crudely (though effectively) written, and conveys false and vicious abstractions.

Look at what happened to Native Americans who were stripped of their dignity by reliance on trade with the Whites, the havoc it wreaked on the culture.

Well, for one thing, their lifespan and standard of living rose dramatically.

Look at the current rates of alcoholism and drug addiction on the reservations.

There are high rates of drug addiction and alcoholism in the former Soviet Republics also. This does not prove that life was better during Soviet times.

That is why great men like Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull led a last ditch effort to preserve their people. They saw what was happening to their people after the contact with the White man's "superior" technology [...]

Why do you put superior in quotation marks? If the words "technology" and "superior" mean anything, then the technology of the Europeans was vastly superior to that of the Native Americans.

I have a question for you: given your comments, do you honestly believe that Native Americans who suffer from depression today would be better off reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, rejecting modern technology and trade with others? If so, what do you think that man's proper means of survival is?

[Maximus]

I'm referring primarily to North American tribes. True, there are what we today would consider barbarities, such as torture of enemies, but then, what is different between that and the Spanish Inquisition? At least it was not done in the name of God. In NA societies, one could leave one's goods unsecured, even in the wilderness, identified by a marking stick, and they would remain unmolested. Crimes of passion exist in any culture, but still, there was no need for jails or prisons. Tribal societies place a great emphasis on good relations between individuals, as the survival of the very group depends on cooperation and harmony. The worst punishment that can be meted out is that of banishment, with shunning a close second. Death would be preferable to banishment, as it marks one as a pariah, and is a blow to one's honor and standing. No one will trust you again or succor you. Your only hope is to go to your enemies, who may kill you anyway.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Maximus

[Maximus]

I have a question for you: given your comments, do you honestly believe that Native Americans who suffer from depression today would be better off reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, rejecting modern technology and trade with others? If so, what do you think that man's proper means of survival is?

It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. The revival of the old ways, except in a limited sense, is now impossible. That being said, many have regained their dignity and purpose in life by returning to the spiritual practices of their ancestors. This gives them a tangible psychological boost, a sense of purpose and an identity, rather than a feeling of helplessness and worthlessness.

As to man's proper means of survival, you know the answer to that already.

[Tenzing_Shaw]

That being said, many have regained their dignity and purpose in life by returning to the spiritual practices of their ancestors. This gives them a tangible psychological boost, a sense of purpose and an identity, rather than a feeling of helplessness and worthlessness.

As to man's proper means of survival, you know the answer to that already.

Yes, I do. How does this not contradict your quote above?

[SapereAude]

No way. When, for example, the tribes in New Guinea kill and eat people because they believe they gain something from that person's soul, that's barbarism and a crime as against rational western societies.

Have you seen the movie Apocalypto? That was supposed to be an historically accurate portrayal of Indians.

No matter how horrific those were socially accepted norms, they were not "crimes" by definition.

As far as Apocolypto... Europeans were very busy with the Inquistion-also a mystical irrational superstitious enterprise with the main point being torture and murder.

I don't know if it can be said that eating the body once you've done all else to it puts them in some new echelon of barbaric.

[RationalBiker]

That is correct, of course, and it would be quite wrong to conclude from this that I define myself as a "waste-expelling animal" rather than a rational one.

But it would be a slightly different case, wouldn't it, if I refused to part with my Bible at any price, saying that it was my means of bonding with Jesus. Scientists could measure changes in my hormone levels and brain activity when I held the Bible--but would this really be proof that I was "biologically connected" to it? (Don't worry, I would still have rights in this scenario and you couldn't just take the Bible from me; the point is simply that the purported biological connection does not exist.)

We must have seen different movies then, the purported biological connection was immensely obvious in the movie I saw. The bible analogy does not work.

Edited May 28, 2010 by RationalBiker

[RationalBiker]

I think you are confusing the Home Tree with the Tree of Souls.

I think in some instances I have made this mistake as well.

[Grames]

It doesn't. Also, note that I am not saying the Na'vi necessarily lacked a rational faculty. The vicious thing about the movie is precisely that it shows the Na'vi as beings that had (or used to have) the potential for rationality, but threw it away in order to be "environmentally-friendly animals" rather than rational ones.

So you are making a judgment of what is the essence of the Na'vi. I say this only identifies the literary essence of the Na'vi, their function within the story. But there is another essence.

When I watch the movie as part of the audience I am confronted with a Na'vi as a visual concrete moving and making sounds. Their speaking and deliberation, and acts of skill in hunting and the production of weapons and harnesses and modifying their home all lead to the conclusion that they have a rational faculty and that they are essentially a kind of people. A literary analysis is a higher level of abstraction than the relatively lower level identification of the Na'vi as persons. A literary analysis that conflicts with that identification is either evidence of a faulty analysis or a faulty story. Here the story is at fault not the analysis.

(In reality a conflict between higher and lower level abstractions requires one of the abstractions to be rejected because contradictions do not exist. In a constructed literary reality contradictions can exist, and a proper response upon finding one is to reject that literary reality. )

So I can't follow your willingness to disregard the status of the Na'vi as persons because I cannot negate the immediacy and necessity of my inductive conclusion, my recognition, that the Na'vi are persons. That recognition is not merely an emotional response or even caused by an emotional response, the recognition comes first before any evaluation and emoting occurs.

[Grames]

I certainly agree with this. But what standard would you use for evaluating the ideas in fiction?

Instead of finding a corresponding element in reality (and only there), also search for a corresponding cognitive elements.

It is not the lack of a complete explanation that I am faulting. Completely explaining any phenomenon would almost always be out of place in fiction. What I am faulting is the nature of the phenomenon described, given the theme of the film. I gather you agree that this aspect of the film was not an accidental detail (there aren't many accidental details in Avatar)? In that case, what would you say is the abstraction that this detail concretizes?

It concretizes the consciousness referred to as Eywa as a physical being. The information exchange along the root system is explicitly identified in the film as analogous to the actions of axons and synapses in the human brain but at a scale several orders of magnitude larger.

[Capitalism Forever]

We must have seen different movies then, the purported biological connection was immensely obvious in the movie I saw. The bible analogy does not work.

So you're saying, in effect, "Cameron wanted to make a movie about nature-worshippers, but he failed because his characters had a real connection to nature" ? Isn't that a bit like saying that somebody wanted to make a movie about God but failed because the character meant to represent God was a real person in the movie?

[Capitalism Forever]

literary analysis that conflicts with that identification is either evidence of a faulty analysis or a faulty story. Here the story is at fault not the analysis.

Agreed, and well put.

So I can't follow your willingness to disregard the status of the Na'vi as persons because I cannot negate the immediacy and necessity of my inductive conclusion, my recognition, that the Na'vi are persons.

They are portrayed as persons in order to make us sympathize with them, but that portrayal is a lie.

Cameron is saying two contradictory things: on the one hand, he's saying that the Na'vi are persons; on the other hand, he's saying that they are anti-rational beings. The question is: which of the two is what he really wants them to be and which one is only there for propaganda purposes?

[Capitalism Forever]

BTW, have you guys read The Night of January 16?

[RationalBiker]

So you're saying, in effect, "Cameron wanted to make a movie about nature-worshippers, but he failed because his characters had a real connection to nature" ?

Yes. In fact, very early on in thread (perhaps you missed it) I already said essentially the same thing. I understand his intent, but I think his execution failed. It would be very similar in some respects to saying that an artist painted a canvas black while his intent was to represent white. That is more extreme, but is it difficult to understand how the execution of something may fail to accurately communicate what was intended?

Isn't that a bit like saying that somebody wanted to make a movie about God but failed because the character meant to represent God was a real person in the movie?

That depends on how much further the representation of God goes beyond being merely the characteristic of a "real person". That also depends on whether you can define the concept God at all. In your hypothetical, what are all of the characteristics of the God you are talking about, and what are all the characteristics of the "real person" representing him in the movie? Come, fill out some context for me. Cameron gave me about 2 1/2 hours of context to go by, you are only giving me one sentence.

Edited May 28, 2010 by RationalBiker

[Thales]

No matter how horrific those were socially accepted norms, they were not "crimes" by definition.

The fact that they were "accepted norms" is the entire point. We're talking about savage societies, not idyllic ones such as portrayed in Avatar.

As far as Apocolypto... Europeans were very busy with the Inquistion-also a mystical irrational superstitious enterprise with the main point being torture and murder.

Western man at his worst was as horrible as anyone. It's easy to be horrible. Western society at its best was the best in the world, by a long shot. But, even given all of this, the point is that those tribal societies were brutal to live under. And, btw, what happened in Apocalytpo looked worse than the Inquisition by quite a bit.