Other articles by John C. Sherwood
'2001': A dialogue
by John C. Sherwood
The following is the result of some requests from members of the Arthur
C. Clarke Internet Fan Club list (e-mail: [email protected]; go to the web site by clicking here *or* go to our Arthur C. Clarke links and *photo page* by clicking here).
This is a term paper written in late 1969 while I was a sophomore at
Albion College in Albion, Michigan. The course I was taking was
"Development of Western Philosophical Thought." I believed I might
parlay my insight into "2001: A Space Odyssey" into a term paper
discussing various early philosophers' teachings.
I received an "A" for my effort, but I'll apologize for any faulty
insights, misinformation, misinterpretation or poor writing stemming
from my youthful thoughts and skill. I've transcribed my paper below
just as it was written, with inserted comments/corrections provided by
my professor, Dr. Anderson, a gentleman about a decade my senior whose
first name, sadly, I've lost to faulty neurons (David?). You may recognize the
form as that of a standard Platonic dialogue, complete with jokes and
testy personalities. The idea made for a rather creative paper and Dr.
Anderson appreciated my effort to be "different." I still take a good
deal of pleasure in it today.
"2001"
John C. Sherwood (1969)
Persons of the Dialogue: Plato; Aristotle; Lucretius; St. Augustine.
Scene: The Quad, the persons having just walked from the Bohm Theatre.
PLATO. Let us walk no further, Aristotle. You are used to such exercise and I am not. (Anderson: "Not quite correct. Plato also was something of an athlete.") There is a good breeze here; let us rather
sit beneath the trees and continue our discussion. Will you accept?
ARISTOTLE. If there is no disagreement.
ST. AUGUSTINE. This is a fine spot. I'll sit.
LUCRETIUS. I as well. Go on, Aristotle.
ARIS. As I had just remarked, my friends, it is my belief that the
film we have viewed shows great pertinence to the ideas we have
expounded during our lives, and is an interesting expression of the
nature of the soul and its relationship with God.
PLA. Far more than that, I should think. There are without doubt
statements in the film concerning the nature of change and its relation
with reason and sense. Ah, I am only too glad that Euripides chose not
to come with us today. He would have us consider the film as a
representation of modern-day Dionysianism.
LUC. I think not. Euripides is an intelligent man.
PLA. He is a playwright.
LUC. Even so. I contend that the psychedelia in the film are sham.
The eyes cannot know the nature of things. All those visual
impressions are but order in disguise. The film argues for reason, not
for Bacchus. Euripides would have seen that. (Anderson: "Good!")
ST. AUG. I believe we should let Aristotle make his point about the
soul, and let reason fall into its place at the proper time, Lucretius.
But I would like to suggest we read the novel based on the film
"2001," so we may discuss both film and book in regard to their
contents. If there is no objection, I shall read to you from my copy.
(The book is read aloud to the group; they continue:)
ST. AUG. It is worth mentioning that this book was written by a man
named Clarke while the film was made by a man named Kubrick.
(Anderson: "I think this is an important point. I have been impressed
with Clarke's knowledge and intellect since I read 'The Sands of Mars'
at age 12. Kubrick is an entirely other sort of artist!") Hence I
suggest that, while statements are being made about the same concepts
in each, they do not entirely agree. Now, Aristotle, your argument.
ARIS. Before I begin I must repeat our agreement that the film is
symbolic, and that in the action of the story an outside force is seen
to bring about marked changes in the nature of man. This outside force
is represented by a black monolith, or slab; I submit that the final
symbol, a superhuman fetus contemplating the earth, represents that
upon which the outside force has acted, the soul.
LUC. We have acknowledged that.
ARIS. As I already said. Now, we must for the sake or argument
accept the notion that man - as depicted - ascended from the lower
species as our friend Darwin insists. For even if this idea is refuted
biologically, the concept remains that man can and does change, and
that biological evolution may be in "2001" a literary device to show
this. If there is no argument against accepting man's mutability, I
will continue. I take it we all refute Parmenides in this matter, so I
will ask what can bring about such change. For this film it is the
form, or real meaning, of the slab; the material aspect of the slab
holds little importance, for the existence - the *being* - of the slab
inspires the pre-men to utilize rational powers and develop tools in
the form of weapons.
ST. AUG. Then the slab imparts knowledge to the pre-men?
ARIS. The slab allows the pre-men to discover reason and knowledge
within themselves. I'm certain Plato would go along with that.
ST. AUG. Thus the slab gives them the ability to reason, or to put it
on the levels we wish to discuss, the force symbolized by the slab
changes the soul of man so it may not simply perceive, but utilize
perception, reflect, and know.
ARIS. Yes, it may seem so.
ST. AUG. Do you think, Aristotle, that the slab therefore represents
God? For God may speak in such ways to enlighten us.
ARIS. I do believe, Augustine, the slab signifies the One, the
Something called God which produces motion without being moved. As a
symbol the slab moves spatially, in a primary circular movement around
Jupiter, but as Clarke describes, "it was only the outward
manifestation of forces too subtle to be consciously perceived," and
may therefore be infinite and unmoving in its entirety. We never see
it change in the film; it retains its features without alteration for
over three million years. Yet it causes apes to use tools and become
men; it causes men to travel beyond the earth to Jupiter; it causes one
man to perceive things beyond our knowledge and then turns him into a
being more advanced than he once was. It always acts without being
acted upon and because it acts on men's souls it is the initiating
principle of soul, therefore God. God, as we all agree, is immaterial,
so it is probably best for us to say it is the *form* of the slab which
is God, and that the symbolic attachment of matter to the form simply
makes the form tangible to us and therefore easier to grasp as a
symbol. We cannot perceive God so easily.
PLA. I find a difficulty here. Does God play such a role in the
affairs of men that he wishes to change man to a deliberate end? What
may He benefit?
ST. AUG. If God may be displeased by a soul which changes and forsakes
Him, He is pleased by one which changes and embraces Him.
ARIS. It would seem in this film that the God-slab, through being,
produces motion which it desires to be made, and therefore I feel
Augustine is right in thinking that the film presents this notion.
Therefore there is a constant movement toward God in the film, inspired
by God and ending with a change in the nature of man's soul.
(Anderson: "Would Aristotle be able to accommodate such a radical
change? Or is it simply the actualization of a potentiality?")
ST. AUG. That is why I am struck with the essential Christian nature
of the film. It depicts pre-men discovering reason through God and
elevating to men, and then men who are sufficiently brave to travel in
the void beyond the earth - which I find a startling allegory for the
ascent to heaven - are advanced even further in the development of soul
by the omnipotent God who is met there. Mankind is reborn, symbolized
by what Clarke calls the Star-Child, to a kind of spatial salvation and
thus becomes God-like. Although I cannot help but shudder at such a
blasphemous imitation of God, I feel it is this *ability* and
*necessity* man has for the recognition, discovery and salvation of
God's holy light that is the theme of the film.
LUC. Are you certain that the change is a birth and not a death?
After all, the man who lives to the final scene of the film survives
only after the death of his crewmate and the pseudo-death of his
mechanical companion. Then he himself is seen to die. (Anderson: "I
think Lucretius would here also object to the religious nature of the
interpretations so far presented. His opposition to religious
domination is seen from the first in his book. Would he not reject the
God interpretation of the slab entirely? And could a case not be made
for that?")
ST. AUG. There are other symbols which indicate the concept of birth,
Lucretius. The vessel which takes the men into space is shaped like
the sperm-cell; its destination is Jupiter, which the film presents as
a huge egg-like object. When the vessel and destination merge we are
transported to a great room and a great bed, upon which the Star-Child
is conceived. But in the action of the birth, of course, the old had
to give way and allow the new form to take its place.
LUC. I see. Then the Star-Child is still man, yet with a new form?
ARIS. If I may interfere, I should say that the Star-Child is not only
a representation of a new material or nonmaterial reality, not only a
new form, but an extension of the old form which is closer to the One
than before. The pre-men were prior extensions of the soul of man, yet
were not men and could not have the same form as men; just the same,
this new being is a movement from, but still retaining connections
with, the soul of man; but, as Clarke presents it, it is more knowing
and more powerful. Would that our friend Nietzsche were here! He
would revel in this conversation. Clarke in the book shows Star-Child
to be a nonmaterial entity with abilities we might attribute to God,
but are apparently not as powerful as those of God. Augustine, read to
us once more the account of his omnipresence and his power.
ST. AUG. "*Here* he was, adrift in this great river of suns, half-way
between the banked fires of the galactic core and the lonely, scattered
sentinel stars of the rim. And *here* he wished to be, on the far side
of this chasm in the sky, this serpentine band of darkness, empty of
all stars. ... Unwittingly, he had crossed it once; now he must cross
it again - this time, of his own volition. The thought filled him with
a sudden, freezing terror, so that for a moment he was wholly
disoriented, and his new vision of the universe trembled and threatened
to shatter into a thousand fragments. It was not fear of the galactic
gulfs that chilled his soul, but a more profound disquiet, stemming
from the unborn future. For he had left behind the time scales of his
human origin; now, as he contemplated that band of starless night, he
knew his first intimations of the Eternity that yawned before him.
Then he remembered that he would never be alone, and his panic slowly
ebbed. The crystal-clear perception of the universe was restored to
him - not, he knew, wholly by his own efforts. When he needed guidance
in his first faltering steps, it would be there ...
"There before him, a glittering toy no Star-Child could resist, floated
the planet Earth with all its peoples. He had returned in time. ...
A thousand miles below, he became aware that a slumbering cargo of
death had awoken, and was stirring sluggishly in its orbit. The feeble
energies it contained were no possible menace to him; but he preferred
a cleaner sky. He put forth his will, and the circling megatons
flowered in a silent detonation that brought a brief, false dawn to
half the sleeping globe. Then he waited, marshaling his thoughts and
brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of
the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think
of something."
PLA. It is all well and good to imagine that we might become as God,
because to be so is of course to attain His attributes of wisdom,
divinity and justice, but I sincerely doubt that such a thing is
intended in either film or book as a prophecy for what someday might
occur. Rather it is an expression that man is capable in life of
becoming as a god should he be righteous in using his facilities. Yet
this does not seem a promising notion, for men glory in their
unrighteousness. (Anderson: "This sounds more like Augustine than
Plato.")
LUC. Do you not think, Plato, that man may contain within him the
potential for godliness? There are men who have been deemed gods, is
it not so?
PLA. Yes, it just does not seem to be a very feasible hope in life,
though.
LUC. I would say the same, that god-like men are few. But it would
also seem to me that man, having such a potential, is thereby good or,
at least, capable of goodness. Are not all men, then, capable of
goodness in this way?
PLA. It would seem to me, Lucretius, that you somewhat contradict your
writings. Have you not said that gods bring the sweet solaces which
men might subsist without? Therefore gods are not essential to our
life, and man should not waste the time to attain such a status.
LUC. But I have also said that such solaces may not be enjoyed les one
have a clean breast, having given up pride, lust and wantonness. Is
not such forsaking of evils an advance toward goodness? (Anderson:
"That's more like it for Lucretius.")
PLA. Certainly it is. It is an advance toward righteousness, and
because God is perfect righteousness it is a step toward God.
LUC. But is it a step toward becoming as a god? Star-Child is an
entity complete in itself despite his dependence on God as a support.
ST. AUG. The angels are such. Perhaps we might think of this new form
of man as a living spirit, a free soul close to God yet of itself an
individual force. (Anderson: "Good!")
ARIS. It would be interesting to discuss the characteristics of
Star-Child in connection with our discoveries of the nature of the
soul. For example, Clarke in the novel seems to speak of the mind as a
synonym for the soul, a tendency which I think is representative of
some modern thinking about the soul. I suggest that this, however, is
a device to help the reader understand that the soul is the seat of
rational thought, and that it is through reason that the soul is
affected and changed.
LUC. But we are going to get involved in a problem should we continue
to speak of Star-Child as "mind," Aristotle. The mind and soul are
clearly distinct from one another. When one senses the necessity of
some act or thing, it is the mind which is first affected by such
sensation, causing the will to rise and affect the soul. The soul then
acts upon the body, being the source of motion, and brings about the
action. Star-Child may put forth his "will," as this would be in order
were Star-Child a "mind," but is not mind a function of the body and
the senses, and the soul only able to perceive by the functions of the
body as sensed by the mind? I would say that it is, and that the
immateriality of Star-Child as suggested by Clarke is not conducive to
its ability to perceive anything in the material universe. I would
therefore say that Clarke does not conform here with any of our beliefs
on the nature of the soul, for he contends that soul has the properties
of the bodily mind.
ST. AUG. I would think, though, that Star-Child is still a
representation of the angelic spirit, for in the film we have no such
suggestion that he is mind. Clarke alone has done this, and perhaps
only to make things easier for readers to grasp. Yet, is not
Star-Child immortal? Does he not have life apart from the body? These
re properties of soul, not mind, and Kubrick thus wants us to think of
his symbols as representations of the advancement of the soul. God is
the agent by which the soul is brought to salvation, by His divine acts
which may change us but not He. In the film it is apparent that man is
not an actual part of God, for if man changes then God changes, and God
is immutable. Even if we consider man's form, the soul, as that which
changes, we cannot think of God as the same type of soul, for it is
then capable of change. So we must not think of Star-Child as being on
the same level as God, despite his power. He is represented as an
unborn child, thus capable of further growth; he is therefore not yet
able to reach God, but he is closer to divinity than we are. So we
might think of Star-Child as an expression of hope that man may see
God's light and by such divine reason ascend to God.
ARIS. Of course I would contend that the soul may live apart from the
body, but you agree that, in the film, reason is the saving force which
brings about the change in soul?
ST. AUG. I should say so, sir.
PLA. Then you would say, Augustine, that any knowledge of God would
come through reason, rather than simple impressions of the senses?
ST. AUG. Yes, I would. (Anderson: "Yes, reason rather than sense.
But reason alone, for Augustine, is not capable. What is needed is
grace -- and love and all that.") Simple impressions may deceive. I
hope you are not laying one of your cunning Socratic traps for me,
Plato.
PLA. No reason for that. We are not here necessarily to find the
ideas of "2001" wrong, but simply where they fit or do not fit in with
our own ideas. But it does seem to me that "2001" expresses the
opinion that man may find his salvation through reason, and that reason
is a divine gift dispenses to us only because we have demonstrated the
ability to use it effectively, to advance our souls to godliness. Why
did the slab suddenly appear among the pre-men? To give them reason.
But why? Clarke suggests that it was because man has senses and
agility, and could use reason to a higher degree than could a
non-sensing being like a tree. Man was chosen by God in this way, so
we were actually able to use our sense in making tools and fighting for
survival. Thus it is God who provides the means by which we may be
saved, but it is man's innate force that is the first-principle which
may be developed. This is the soul, which the film - as already
suggested - depicts as separate from God but capable of approaching
God. God does not provide the soul, only the means for improving it.
Man may thereafter exercise free will in determining his acts, for God
apparently wants us to reach Him through our own efforts. In this way
he may be an active as well as passive force in the lives of men; I
compromise with Augustine in this way.
LUC. Thus we would say that in "2001" change is the result of reason,
and that man's soul may grow closer to God through reason?
PLA. That is the implication. (Anderson: "Remember that Plato gets
Eros in the process, too. That is what drives men to the Good.")
LUC. And that truth, as the end of reason, comes from and is shown to
us by God? That God gives us reason to find truth?
PLA. Such is the nature of God.
LUC. Then I have found another difficulty. How may we then explain
the use of the psychedelia in the film? For they are illusion,
deceptions of sense which lead us to opinion and not to truth.
ARIS. I have a feeling, Lucretius, that you already may explain this
to us. Did you not say earlier that the psychedelia are but order in
disguise?
LUC. By the dog, Aristotle! I'd like to trap Plato just once one of
these days, and I was on the verge of it. Ah, well, I shall explain.
This images seen by the surviving astronaut are shown to him by the
God-slab. The first impressions are those of infinite tunnels through
which the astronaut races, which Clarke describes as hyperdimensional
paths between regions of the universe. The tunnels in the film are
straight, patterned, defined, ordered; they are not the false
impressions of illusion which only delay us in our quest for truth.
These tunnels take us immediately to that point in space and time
wherein God wants the man to witness the creation of the universe.
Yes, that is what you saw on the screen: the representation of the
exploding, expanding ylem which astronomers today so much love to
haggle over. On the film you saw the prime matter spread out to form
the galaxies, and then you saw great clouds of dust coalesce to form
the stars, which in turn gave rise to the formation of planets. Would
you not say that such a sight would turn one's mind to the orderly
structure of the universe, its mathematical laws and its limiting
factors?
PLA. These days, I suppose so.
ST. AUG. If I might agree with Lucretius, I must say that God's
universe is definitely operated according to His laws, and that, being
made by Him, it is good, therefore perfect and orderly.
LUC. So instead of an illogical mass of disorganized shapes and
colors, we are shown the material universe which one might associate
somewhat with Nature, and Nature is orderly albeit impersonal. In the
film, God thus shows the man that the universe is orderly as the result
of reason, and that man must give himself over to reason to achieve
godliness. Kubrick demonstrates man's submission to Nature by having
him placed in a room filled with naturalistic paintings and sculptures;
this room, as Clarke explains, is simply a material extension of the
man's own memories. It is such a surrender that God must want from
man. (Anderson: "Which is why, for Lucretius, man must overcome and
revolt against God's enslaving desires.")
ARIS. Then we all agree that the message of "2001" pertains to the use
of our reasoning powers, and that such reason brings us closer to God?
PLA. Yes, by our own choice.
ST.AUG. Yes, in discovering god's goodness by His revelation.
LUC. Yes, but the process is determined - not by man. (Anderson: "Not
clear.")
ARIS. And that, although the particular man who achieves godhood in
the film performs no blatantly reasoning act, he is representative of
mankind which elevates itself to that stature merely by using its
reasoning abilities? Of course, you all agree. But is such a film's
statement valid?
ST. AUG. What do you mean, Aristotle?
ARIS. I refer you to the rest of mankind, my friends. How may we
demonstrate in a concise, simple way that "2001" concerns the salvation
of man's soul through reason? Obviously, the film itself did not. Did
you not notice all the others in the theater who complained about its
ambiguity?
ST. AUG. I did, Aristotle. And I would answer them by having them
discuss the film as we have. For in the simple act of discussion the
film demonstrates its point: the necessity of reason in discovering
truth. Those that will not try to find truth are so much the more
deprived, for they do not know the means by which the end is reached.
LUC. Then Kubrick intended the film's vagueness to instill the desire
for truth, and make his audience - or those like the few pre-men who
were able to - reason about its nature. Would that our friend McLuhan
were here! The film's statement lies as well in its own method of
presentation. By the dog, Aristotle, the film itself is an initiating
principle! (Anderson: "Which is what art is largely about.")
ARIS. So I have been thinking. But, unfortunately, because the senses
so deceive us people will perceive the film differently and arrive at
far different conclusions, or none at all. As you said, Lucretius, it
is illusion which delays us on our path to godliness. "2001" therefore
indicates that Dionysianism is not the answer, for to forsake the real
is to forsake the potentiality of godhood. I would like to think that
you are right, Lucretius, in saying that such salvation may be
inevitable as portrayed in the film. We might hope that God will
continue to inspire us with reason, for at the moment the promises of
man's soul advancing any further do not seem obvious. Reason does not
seem very popular in this world.
LUC. It grows late, Aristotle.
ARIS. So it does, as well as colder. Let us proceed to the coffee
shop; it is nearby. We may find someone there with which we may
discuss this thing further. Let us go.
PLA. I am glad that Homer was not here. He would have talked at great
length on the literary merit of the book; he may even have complained
that the title, "2001: A Space Odyssey," was plagiarism.
LUC. I think not. Homer is an intelligent man.
PLA. He is a poet.
LUC. Even so. Aristotle is far ahead, Plato. Go faster; I walk on
your feet.
PLA. You always tried to, Lucretius. (Anderson: "Good!")
(Anderson's final comments: "There are some flaws, as I read it, in the
presentation of 'the boys,' but on the whole this is a delightful and
highly imaginative attempt. You not only show careful reading and
thinking regarding the men we have read, but make them *live* and
breathe at Albion College. As a first try, I'm sure you see the
difficulties of this stylistic form. But even when those are obvious
the advantages shine as well. I'm glad you tried it. Try again
soon!" In remarks to me, Dr. Anderson said that, when he saw
"2001," he had thought that the ending was a symbol of the
Second Coming, and that he appreciated being set straight.)
� Text by MysteryVisits.com, West Grove, PA
** Revised 23 July 2002 **
* PORTAL *
| * SITE MAP & LINKS *