[MD] False Messiah

[Heather Perella]

Hello,

SA:
>      I saw the movie 'V for Vendetta' this
> afternoon. 
> One thing struck me about what a character in the
> movie said about the hero.  The final event occurred
> and then some other people had something to say or
> their moments of doing.  She, though, said that she
> would remember the man that started this all.  The
> man
> that lead 'the event' (I am trying to not give away
> the movie for those that wish to see it, but it is
> obviously hard not to give some things away about
> it.).  The whole time 'this man' wore a mask. 
> Everybody wanted to see this man behind the mask. 
> He
> said it is not the face or body behind this mask
> that
> is important.  It is the idea.  The idea was seen
> everywhere in bits in pieces.  Little kids to adults
> all in their own way influencing each other in ways
> they may not have realized it, but influence they
> did
> until certain actions from these ideas popped up
> here
> and over there.  This man was a hero, and was a
> major
> character for this 'idea' motivating the 'events'
> taking place until the climatic event.  Yet, here is
> where I think something could go morally wrong.  She
> wanted to remember the man.  The same man that said
> it
> was not him, but it was the idea to contemplate and
> take action with.  Yet, she literalized the idea
> into
> one man.  That is morally wrong, because it cannot
> happen.  The idea cannot be trapped in one man.  If,
> social is a higher level than biological, and
> intellect is higher than both, then this idea born
> of
> intellect, spread into society, actualized in the
> actions of biological beings, intellect (an idea) is
> then something more than not just one man, it is
> even
> more than many humans (society), an idea goes far
> beyond any biological system and social activity of
> many people.  Yet, she trapped the idea in one man,
> against his understanding of where and what the idea
> was.  She perverted the idea into one literal,
> seemingly in her eyes maybe, separate cause of all
> other events into this delineated person.  To
> remember
> this one human and converge the idea into this one
> human, and to be later, through history, become an
> idea only linked with this one human being - now
> that
> is perverted, morally wrong, and also a problem that
> people in the future (using foresight) would find
> themselves arguing over.  An idea is much more than
> even a society of people, so how could it be
> consolidated into one person. 
>      This is what perverts budda, christ, and others
> who lived the Way, walked listening to dharma, and
> tried to express something, they themselves knew,
> was
> much more than they themselves as individuals.
>      So who is the Pope of MOQ?  I hope us all and
> more.  I hope that is something we identify with as
> where quality exists, too.  If we trap it any one
> place, and yet, other places exist, yet, no quality
> is
> found or trapped out of those places, then morally
> something went wrong. " 
> 
> 
> i went to see this movie after your "review" <s>
> stoked my curiosity.
> It's worth another viewing or two in my opinion.
> There seemed to be more layers to this movie
> than the title might suggest. 
> SA said: "Yet, here is
> where I think something could go morally wrong.  She
> wanted to remember the man.  The same man that said
> it
> was not him, but it was the idea to contemplate and
> take action with.  Yet, she literalized the idea
> into
> one man. 
> Smith: i'm not so sure she wanted to "remember the
> man" for the reason you're suggesting or at least
> i think you're suggesting. And if even if she did i
> think there was once again other reasons that
> may not be so obvious.
> Evey Hammond: Who are you? 
> V: "Who?" "Who" is but the form following the
> function of "what", and *what* I am is a man in a
> mask. 
> Evey Hammond: Well I can see that! 
> V: Of course you can. I'm not questioning your
> powers of observation,
>  I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a
> masked man who he is. 

     Smith, I could see the movie more times as well,
as you said there may be more layers to this.  Yet,
what I am referring to is her wanting to remember him.
 The simplicity in remembering him, could lead into an
idealization of the man, as opposed to the sense that
all of society was caught up in an idea.  Yet, what
happened was the people on the march, at the end, wore
a mask of this man.  It was this man that was changing
society, and they were marching behind this man, his
mask.  He became their leader.  She said at the end,
that the man was her dad, her mother, the inspector,
herself, and so on.  This man became somebody bigger
than one person, he became many people.  Yet, if she
wants to remember this man that takes on all of these
people, and does not leave the man behind for the
idea.  If, the rest of the society would discard their
mask of him, and would realize the idea they are
caught up with, an idea that this masked man was
caught up with, too, just like everybody else, then it
is the idea, not the man, that provides something to
remember.
     If she does remember the man, even if not to
literalize and idealize his life as a man, not the
idea without the man, then what would future
generations think about this man she allowed to be
remembered.  Will she write about this man?  Will
movies be made?  Will memorial days be set aside in
memory of this man?  How will she remember this man? 
And how will others look back at this man?  

SA  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com