Warning: this blog post contains plot elements of the movie 9, currently in theaters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had heard a few good things about 9, and one of the things that intrigued me was the parallels to the Mecosystem.

Basically, the movie is about an apocalypse between humans and machines, and the last traces of living humanity are captured in a set of 9 ragdolls, created by the scientist who created the original machine that declared war on humans.

There are definitely some interesting parallels to the unconscious and the Mecosystem. However, I had a hard time seeing the distinctions between most of the numbered characters. Even the title character, 9, did not stand out particularly well, as he was rather similar to 2 (who got “killed” pretty early on).

The great machine-brain (GMB) bothers me somewhat. It took me some thought to figure out that GMB most closely resembles an automatic unconscious process that has been left in place by a heavily scarred and violent history, and that 9’s curiosity “provokes” it into a rage, though of course its rage has nothing to do with 9 in particular. That, plus the one comment made by some character to the effect of, “it’s not fair that we should have to clean up the mess left by those before us,” resonates with a feeling that I would wager that just about everybody has when they start to dig into self-knowledge… but I never really got a sense of why 9 was so driven to defeat the machine, as opposed to running away.

The parallel to GMB in our lives is never truly defeated, and is actually another character in its own right in the Mecosystem. I could be wrong about this, but there isn’t a character that is just Pure Rage that must be either disabled or destroyed in the personality (with the exception of those for whom self-knowledge at any depth is impossible).

GMB is also placed at complete odds with the soul, and though it was originally seeded with the creator’s intellect, it was “corrupted” and “lacked a soul,” which is the explanation given as to why it was so turned towards evil.

On the whole, I’m not exactly sure why I am disappointed. I think I was expecting more subtlety and perhaps more internal conflict. The conflict that was there was fairly one-sided, with 1 pretty much providing all of the conflict through his “rules”, and 9 refusing to listen to 1.

There wasn’t a whole lot of dialogue between the numbered characters that wasn’t directly relevant to the action or plot. I think I would have liked to have seen some kind of negotiation take place among the numbers, instead of one number being a hero, then another number being another hero… etc.

Lastly, the conflict between “humans and technology” is just plain old hat, and incredibly inaccurate. The conflict isn’t between biology and machinery, the conflict is between those who inflict violence on others and those who do not.

I do realize that the above is quite a lot to expect of a movie nowadays, and that staging a negotiation is quite difficult and probably would not appeal to a mass audience.

Technically speaking, the visuals were stunning, and the voice acting was rather enjoyable, but unless I missed something, I don’t think I’d want to see this movie again.

Experience of Practical Anarchy (also here) by Stefan Molyneux

It took me a long time to get around to reading Practical Anarchy. It wasn’t because I thought I knew everything there was to know in the book… it was just never “the right time.” I just never felt like it.

I had actually almost completed the book but had stopped at some point before the conclusion. In listening to the audio book to completion last night, I discovered that I had stopped only very shortly before the conclusion.

I didn’t ask myself why I was avoiding it, and there might be reasonable excuses why: I’m still processing (and will be for some time) the breakup of a 4+ year relationship; I want to get into therapy soon but haven’t found a therapist yet; I have concerns about my job, my career, my weight… I have a very, very hard time thinking about creating the sort of job I actually want, content instead to spend my evenings wasting my time instead of working.

After a conversation with Stefan about what FDR is compared to how I currently behave in relation to FDR, I began to think more about what it is that’s missing for me. I realized that I feel completely hollowed out–not quite that I don’t have any value, but that I don’t ever create value for others, in others, through what I do.

The followup to this was a conversation with a friend of mine who has had his own issues this past week and was very, very down on himself. I felt that, as my friend, I either “owed” him the feedback he requested or, at least, “owed” him an honest response as to why I wasn’t providing it.

It was after that conversation that I finally got back to Practical Anarchy.

The book is full of brilliant and insightful responses to the many questions and criticisms about how anarchy can work in the myriad practical contexts we find ourselves in. Questions about the roads, healthcare, crime, and so on are all given a treatment, with regular reminders that we should compare anarchy to the current situation, not to some unattainable ideal.

However, the soul of the book is in the conclusion.

Providing possible answers to the questions of anarchy is an interesting and, I would argue, essential intellectual exercise, for if alternatives are at least provided, that can help some people get over the intellectual challenges of anarchy, even if the alternatives themselves never quite pan out. This, however, is not what Practical Anarchy is about, not at its core.

To really understand what it is that makes the title of the book mean more than “How Anarchy Can Be Practical in a Society Ages Away,” I strongly urge you to read the book through and pay close attention to the conclusion. I highly recommend the free audio book, but there is also a free PDF version and, at the time of this writing, a paperback copy for $18.98 at lulu.com.