re: 2001 gospel message

Bjoern Moeller (dj_mic20@yahoo.com)
Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:11:29 -0800 (PST)

At 04:46 PM 11/04/1999 -0500,
ArvesonPT@nswccd.navy.mil wrote:

>My interpretation: Dave took a long time, trying to
save himself,
>trying to escape death by means of technology, proud
of his
>victory in even overcoming the murderous HAL. But
when he is
>imprisoned alone within himself, after an extended
period of time,
>he comes to the end of himself. On his deathbed, he
finally
>gives in and submits to the will of the Power that is
greater than
>him. Immediately the heavenly gate is opened, the
key having
>been found. Dave is reborn in a new creation.
>
>(Go back and see the film, and check out my
interpretation for
>yourself).
>
>Now, do you think Kubrick would have interpreted it
that way?
>
>Who is right?

I think that the only one who is right is Arthur C.
Clark. He was the
writer. All others who interpret it differently than
him have
misunderstood
or changed his intent. I don't know how Clark
interprets the story.
This
is no different than when I tell one of the people in
my group to do
such
and such, and they intepret it differently than what I
meant, there has
been a miscommunication. I may have spoken wrongly,
but they may have
decided to do something differently.
glenn

-------

I would like to comment on this, and now it is not
Glenn writing. I am a freshman on the asa-list, though
I have subscribed to and read it for a long time.

Who am I ? A danish student of philosophy, a christian
which experienced my first encounter with asa some
years ago, wen pursuing answers to difficult questions
my pastor could not answer.

I donīt think asa has provided all the answers either,
but at least now I am able to sort out the bad
answers, or the non-scientific maybe.

Back to Kubrick. Not that I have ever seen the movie
2001, but regarding Arvesonīs interpretation of the
last scene from it I believe he is entitled to do
that. The nature of interpretation allows the
interpretator to put his own bias into the text, in
this respect into the scene.

Naturally the author also put meaning into the scene,
but that should not prevent Arveson from reading these
images as symbolic of a new birth.

Both Kubrick and Clark should, if they are true makers
of art, allow this.

Again, this is a discussion on reading and
understanding a text, or really a visual text, and it
couldnīt be more diverse than the number of readers
and interpretators.

Unfortunately this discussion is the kind that never
ends, because each reader and author presses on his
right to have the best understanding of a text.

Then probably the debate will not end here neither.

From

Bjorn Moller

e-mail: dj_mic20@yahoo.com

=====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com