"Lenin in Poland" and "The Matrix: Revolution"

"Lenin in Poland" and "The Matrix: Revolution"
Portraits against the backdrop of reality


Publication date: November 6, 2003

The contemporary philosopher Slavoj Žižek, in his book “The Sublime Object of Ideology,” gives the following anecdote: “A group of visitors at an art exhibition huddled around a painting called “Lenin in Poland,” which depicts Nadezhda Krupskaya on a bed in a frivolous pose in the company of a young Komsomol member. To the question visitors “Where is Lenin?” the guide replies: “Lenin in Poland.”

The anecdote is used by Žižek to illustrate the fact that, according to the theory of another philosopher, Jacques Lacan, the word denoting for us humans does not mean the presence, as is commonly believed, of an object of reality, but rather its absence.

In this context, it is interesting to ask the representatives of our younger generation, “the young, unfamiliar tribe,” the question: “Where is your place in reality, what is your portrait against the background of this reality?” in order to determine the scale of destruction after the advent of the postmodern era.

I tried, as a media correspondent, to get an answer to this question during interviews with three representatives of the younger generation: a Russian girl and a young man, and a non-Russian girl.

The interviews began with a question regarding the film The Matrix , the third episode of which, The Matrix Revolutions, had just been released. As a result, the words “Lenin”, “Matrix” and “Revolution” are intertwined in such an unexpected way in the title of the article.

In all cases, similar questions were used with minor variations arising during the interviews.

---

Portrait of a Russian girl

The Russian girl appears as a young student, Ekaterina M., randomly chosen in the corridors of the educational institution for her frivolous orange T-shirt, on which was sewn a “Fuck America” sticker.

Russian Magazine: Have you seen the Wachowski brothers' first film "The Matrix"? If so, did you like the film?

Ekaterina M.: Yes, this is my favorite film. Firstly, because of the amazing special effects. And secondly, the film has an unusual plot and philosophical meaning. I have watched "The Matrix" more than 10 times; for me the film is a cult film. In my opinion, the main idea of ​​the film is to believe in yourself and your strengths no matter what the circumstances, even if it would seem that everything is lost.

RJ: One of the characters in the film, Morpheus, says to Neo, the Chosen One: “Welcome to the desert of reality.” What does this phrase mean to you?

E.M.: According to the film, before Neo agreed to find out what the Matrix is ​​and where the real reality is, Morpheus told him: “...I am only offering you the truth and nothing more.” So, reality is truth, truth. She may be terrible, ugly, but it's true. And the phrase "Welcome to the desert of reality" means to me: "Welcome to the truth."

RJ: For you, reality and truth are identical. Morpheus, however, speaks of the “desert of reality,” which means that in the phrase you proposed we should also speak of the “desert of truth,” that is, perhaps the absence of reality, truth in general?

E.M.: Truth plays a big role. Truth is something that can be proven. You can't do without it. Truth is the main attribute of reality. I have an ambivalent attitude towards truth, as well as towards reality. On the one hand, the bitter truth is better than a beautiful lie. It's better to know the truth. But you need to be able to distinguish the real truth and not take for granted what you are told without checking it. Otherwise, in most cases, it will be a deviation from reality.

RJ: So, for you, reality exists, and it can be proven?

E.M.: Yes. For example, here is a table in front of us. To prove its reality, there is a certain physical procedure that allows us to conclude that the table exists or not.

RJ: However, you agree that the “table” itself is given to us through its description - this is a text, and the physical procedure for verifying its reality, its logic, is also a text. Thus, when comparing two texts, you want to make a judgment like "true" or "false". Is it possible to do this while remaining within the framework of these texts?

E.M.: No. It seems to me that something else needs to be introduced here that will determine the choice between “true” and “false”. This could be reality, truth, God.

RJ: In other words, another text is needed for choice, the text of reality, truth or God.

How does your reality work: is it universal for everyone or is it different for everyone?

E.M.: In my opinion, there are two realities. One for all - different communities that exist for the whole world, something that everyone sees and knows, for example, the earth is round, there are 12 months in a year, etc.

It is different for different individuals - we all live in different cities, in different material and social conditions. And for one person, reality is life in a luxurious mansion, and for another, it is a rotten shack. I had psychologically difficult feelings after I visited Berlin, breathed fresh air, walked along clean streets, lived in a beautiful hotel, saw smiles on the faces of people passing by and after a while flew back to St. Petersburg. I didn’t understand where I had been and where I had arrived! For a long time I could not adapt to my usual reality. I realized that reality is not universal.

RJ: So, there are many realities. Where do they exist: outside of you or only in you?

E.M.: Reality itself does not play a decisive role in my life, but sometimes it helps me concentrate, not “have my head in the clouds,” act clearly and purposefully and not be deceived. But for me, the “world of imagination and illusions” also plays an important role in life; it often helps me “survive” psychologically in the harsh conditions of reality. A striking example: in school, during physical education lessons, we climbed a rope. I never knew how to do this, and all my attempts ended in failure. During the test, the teacher omitted my last name and explained this by saying that I wouldn’t succeed anyway. I got very angry, went to the rope and “walked out” of the world of reality, plunging into the world of imagination. I vividly imagined that angry hungry dogs were chasing me and the only chance to survive was to climb onto this rope...

Everything worked out for me.

RJ: You contrast the world with universal reality and the individual reality of the imagination. Is there a difference? Both of them are only text, with the difference that the first consists of coordinated monologues of many authors spoken externally, and the second is the author's internal monologue.

What is your relationship with reality-text: do you own and control it, accept it or submit to it, fight with it or go with its flow?

E.M.: I have different, periodically changing relationships with reality. I like it when I can control my reality and change it. For example, if I don’t like my apartment, I’ll rearrange or renovate it, or even move to another one. This will be a partial change in my reality. But often you have to submit to reality, because... either it takes a lot of time to change it, or it simply cannot be changed. For example, a person is afraid of the dark. He cannot change this natural phenomenon. This means that either he will submit to this reality, overcome his fear, or he will simply go crazy. There are things that we cannot change, otherwise the world would be in chaos - as many people as there are, so many ideas about their ideal reality. Therefore, in a universal sense, it is worth accepting it as it is.

RJ: For you, reality is the opposition to confusion, appearing in the form of an ordered text, the elements and structures of which were created before you by all the people who lived before, by the entire culture as a whole. In this context, the claim to authorship of the text looks rather shaky.

How do you perceive yourself in this text: as its center, an involuntary participant, an invitee or a stranger?

E.M.: I recognize myself rather as being invited into reality, into the universal. This can be compared to going on a visit. I come, study the situation, but I have no right to break, destroy, change anything if I don’t like it. I can just leave. This is how it is in reality. If you don't want to see all this, don't watch it!!! You can simply go into your own world, the world of imagination. You can accept reality, but you can only change your own, i.e. just a piece of a larger universal reality. In a universal sense, I won't change anything.

My sense of self was changing. At first I felt like the center of reality and believed that I knew the whole truth and everything about this very reality. I was the ruler of all reality. I imposed my “truthful”, as I thought, points of view, and after a while, gaining life experience, I realized that I knew nothing about reality and truth.

RJ: Growing up, you lost the sense of authorship of the reality-text and became the place where this text happens, happens. The text appears to be a closed system of mirrors where endless reflections travel.

Don't you think that when you speak, it is not you who speak, but the text that speaks to itself through you?

E.M.: It sounds unusual, but following the logic of our conversation, I have to agree with this now.

RJ: Earlier we talked about the author's monologue of imagination, your inner voice. Is it always present in you or indistinguishable, is it orderly, rational or spontaneous, chaotic?

E.M.: Very often, when you make some important decision, an “inner” voice suddenly appears. I rather like spontaneity, primary desires, sometimes thoughtless. These desires are fulfilled with enthusiasm in the eyes, and you get great pleasure from them. In these cases, I silence reality and don't listen to its concerns and warnings. I am the leader in the dialogue with reality. I don't want to completely submit to her. I don't want to be a slave to reason and reality. Let me give you a simple example: it’s Sunday, you have to go to work on Monday, you need to go to bed early. And at the cinema at night there is a new amazing film, and there are tickets for it. What to do? Then reality comes and begins to explain to me how bad I will feel tomorrow, I won’t get enough sleep, etc. But I will do what I want. And even if I feel “really” bad the next day, I will feel mentally satisfied.

But there are situations when reality plays a big role and does not allow you to make rash decisions and make serious mistakes in life. For example, when I was looking for a job, I saw an advertisement - an assistant manager was required (over 18 years old), salary from $800. Who doesn't want to have that kind of money at 18?! But reality stops me: “Look the truth! At your age it is unrealistic to earn that much! They will fool you there!” And here, of course, the leader in the dialogue is reality.

RJ : It seems to me that your “inner voice” in the first case comes, as is commonly believed, from the subconscious, and in the second it is determined by consciousness. In both cases, it is a text, a symbolic interpretation of reality, an attempt to capture its essence, which always eludes. For example, the word “death” is a signifier without a signified, since death is not given to us either in consciousness or in the subconscious. It just doesn't exist for us. Therefore, the text is always about the absence of reality for us rather than its presence.

Where is your place in this unattainable reality, what is your portrait against its background?

E.M.: Before our conversation, I believed that I was a full-fledged part of reality. I'm not afraid of her. First of all, I believe in myself. And this is the main thing. The main thing is when you know that you can, you can do what you want. But it is important to be able to fulfill everything in reality, albeit not without the help of imagination. The main thing is self-confidence! That's what I thought.

However, our conversation raised doubts in me. Because it logically follows from it that I am only a text about my absence, an empty space against the background of reality. This is difficult to accept, but it is food for thought.

Commentary on the portrait of a Russian girl

The portrait of Ekaterina M. is a portrait of a woman with all the accompanying attributes: self-confidence (First of all, I believe in myself.) and reliability and strength of the world (...reality is truth, truth.), inconstancy (I have different, periodically changing relationship with reality.), lability (But often you have to submit to reality...), spontaneity (I rather like spontaneity, primary desires, sometimes not thought through.) and openness (It’s difficult to accept this, but this is food for thought.).

All this, however, is adjacent to the qualities of the younger generation, which, although they chose Pepsi, also acquired the properties and acumen of a free market agent: pragmatism (The main thing is when you know that you can, you can do what you want.), faith into the logical mind (Truth is something that can be proven.), mobility and rootlessness (I recognize myself rather as being invited into reality... This can be compared to going on a visit.).

The legacy of the Russian mentality is manifested in daydreaming (You can simply go into your own world, the world of imagination.) and adherence to absolute values ​​(This could be reality, truth, God.).

With all this, in an unexpected way, there are such purely personal qualities as fatalism (There are things that we cannot change, otherwise the world would be in chaos...) and slight metaphysical sadness (I am more aware of myself being invited into reality...) , turning at times into despair (This means that either he will submit to this reality, overcome his fear, or he will simply go crazy.).

Portrait of a Russian youth

Russian youth Ivan S. is very young. He is a high school student of a very romantic appearance with developing light brown curls a la Yesenin, independent judgments and language, the content and structure of which calls into question the hypothesis about the “clip” nature of the mentality of modern teenagers.

Russian Magazine: Have you seen the Wachowski brothers' first film "The Matrix"? If you liked the film or didn't like it, why?

Ivan S.: It was interesting. The first association was as follows: in a totalitarian state, people are kept under the influence of propaganda and other methods of influence.

RJ: One of the characters in the film, Morpheus, says to Neo, the Chosen One: “Welcome to the desert of reality.” What does this phrase mean to you?

I.S.: Nothing. Only that reality is deserted. I don’t remember in what context this phrase sounded, so it’s difficult to say anything meaningful. But taken out of context, it means nothing to me. Just words.

RJ: How do you yourself perceive the word “reality”: as an empty abstract term, the entire world around you, the totality of human relationships and interactions, or something completely different?

I.S.: To be honest, the word “reality” is really an abstract term for me. To use words like “reality”, “eternity”, “illusion” means to philosophize. I respect philosophers, but I don’t want to share their path. There are nicer things than philosophy.

Reality always plays an important role. That reality that cannot be operated as a philosophical category, but can only be observed as something that can neither be proven nor disproved, and that least of all in the world needs determination. This is the environment, the world around, the degree of penetration into this world.

If your goal is to see and discern what is real and what is not, you just need to stop thinking about it. The film "The Matrix" states the opposite - you have to think a lot, and then you will understand that you are under the influence of hypnosis, that you perceive something unreal. This idea is not close to me. All these thoughts interfere with doing things. And what distracts from life leads to illusions and delusions. The only reality that exists is the present moment of life, and no doctrine can come up with anything more natural.

RJ: You mentioned business. What's the matter for you?

I.S.: Currently, I am interested in journalism, and I work as a copywriter for a school newspaper, that is, a specialist in words. Therefore, my business for me is the production of text.

RJ: How is your “reality” structured: is it one for everyone or are there many realities, always united and unchanging or fragmented and fluid, built in accordance with an absolute principle or simply on its own, universal for everyone or to each their own?

I.S.: In general, to be honest, I, again, am extremely indifferent to all this. She is alone or not, moving or standing - it doesn’t affect my life. I can say something, but not from philosophical experience. It's more of a scientific experience. Moreover, not mine, but the world’s. Everyone has their own reality. If you need to achieve something from a person, you must try to adapt to his reality. You need to speak to him in his language and images of his reality. That's all. Many psychologists talk about this, and it’s difficult to add anything.

RJ: Do you have a feeling that reality exists outside of you or only in you, is it friendly to you, neutral or aggressive, harmonious, built on the agreement of its parts, or contradictory, based on opposition and conflict?

I.S.: Reality exists outside of me, and it is neutral. It is, so to speak, a condition of the task. You need to exist in it. Or rather, a person is doomed to exist in it. And therefore, thinking about whether it is good or bad, harmonious or contradictory - makes absolutely no sense. She's no good. It simply exists as a fact. Of course. This is, again, about my personal reality. Maybe someone will say, like Albert Camus, that the world is absurd. And someone that he is harmonious, and a person was created for happiness. In my opinion, all this depends not on reality, but on the person.

RJ: What is your relationship with reality: do you own and control it, accept it or submit to it, observe, admire or resent it, fight with it or go with its flow?

I.S.: It’s very difficult to say for sure. Reality is cold and motionless. She is a given. I do, however, have some goals. And it’s very difficult to say whether I’m managing it or, on the contrary, trying to adapt to it when I strive for a goal. I know only three points: 1) reality is cold and motionless, it is neither bad nor good, it takes place as a given; 2) I have some tasks, in the solution of which reality can be a hindrance or a helper, but this depends not on it, but on me and my tasks; 3) problems need to be solved, and discussing what helps and what hinders is not only useless, but also harmful. I don’t admire anyone, I don’t resent anything, I don’t fight with anyone, but I don’t go with the flow either. Because how can you be outraged or admire a lamppost because it is tall and made of wood? It has a beautiful lantern on it, but if you hit your forehead against it, you might hate it. However, this is wrong, right? And it’s wrong to admire him. He simply exists and, so to speak, is not to blame for this.

RJ: How do you perceive yourself, self-aware in the context of reality: as its center, an involuntary participant, an invitee or a stranger? Has your sense of self changed over the course of your life?

I.S.: Probably as an involuntary participant. However, again, it is wrong to even regret this participation. Reality does not know me, because it is a frozen block of circumstances. I can be angry with her for being all in these circumstances, or I can be grateful for the fact that I am participating in her. But why? Will this change anything? There is a joke: think about what you will do if the test result is positive, and then what you will do if it is negative. If you act the same way, then perhaps there is no need to undergo an examination? I never think about the world around me from the positions indicated in these questions. In my opinion, these categories have no practical value.

RJ: What role does your internal verbal dialogue with reality, your inner voice, play for you? Is it always present or indistinguishable, orderly, rational or spontaneous and chaotic? Who is the leader in this dialogue: you yourself, your speech or reality? Do you speak or does speech control you? Who is the author of your speech?

I.S.: I don’t agree that the inner voice is a conversation with reality. You could say it's a conversation with yourself. Just thoughts that a person accustomed to social behavior constructs for convenience in the form of dialogue. For me it is quite orderly and rational. Since both people who are talking are Me, then I am the leader in the conversation. I do not communicate with reality. How can you communicate with a pillar?

RJ: Apparently, you deny direct contact with reality. Apparently, your connection with reality is through a long series of screens on which texts appear and disappear. Do you agree with this?

I.S.: Maybe. But there is no point in thinking about it.

RJ: What does such an attribute of reality as Truth represent for you: does it exist or only seems to exist, can it be proven or can only be taken on faith, can one do without it or is it completely impossible to live?

I.S.: “What is truth?” Do you mean objective reality? I don't care. This has no practical value. I still believe my eyes, I believe my ears, I believe my mind. And it seems to me that this approach is justified. This is the only truth accessible to man. What other truth could exist? What is that distant and inaccessible, kind of unattainable secret that everyone strives for, that everyone talks about, but no one has ever seen? I do not believe in that. It relaxes, demoralizes and many other things prevents you from solving problems.

RJ: So, for you there is no hypertext of truth that adds meaning to ordinary texts. Then what are the texts you speak about: about the objects of reality, about your Self or about the texts of your Self?

I.S.: It seems to me that one should not create speculative problems and think too much. It won't make you happier.

RJ: Give me a portrait of you against the backdrop of reality. Are you the only reality or just an empty place in it, do you not trust it, are you afraid of it or are you open to it, are you conveniently located in it, are you a full part of it, dust in the wind or a question mark in it?

I.S.: No matter how it sounds, I am a human being. No more, no less. I cannot be afraid of her or be open to her, just as I cannot be open or afraid of a pillar. I am not a full part of it and I am not dust in the wind, because it is very large. I am human. That's all I can say.

Commentary on the portrait of a Russian youth

The portrait of Ivan S. is a portrait of young Werther, deprived of his suffering and with a pronounced early cooling of mind (I admire no one, I am not indignant at anything, I do not fight with anyone, but I do not go with the flow either.). “An involuntary participant”, “doomed to exist” in a “cold and motionless” reality, which “... does not know me, because it is a frozen block of circumstances.”

He has a high level of identification of his Self (...I am a person. No more, no less.), self-sufficient (I don’t communicate with reality.), rational (For me it (internal dialogue) is quite orderly and rational.) and pragmatic ( If you need to achieve something from a person, you need to try to adapt to his reality .) , focused on “business” (All this thinking interferes with doing things.) and solving “problems” (It relaxes, demoralizes and much more interferes with solving problems) , living in the current moment (The only existing reality is the present moment of life...), avoiding speculative speculation (I respect philosophers, but I don’t want to share their path.) but somewhere, nevertheless, falling into the trap of using words, not having specific content, such as “man” (...all this depends not on reality, but on the person.) and “happiness” (...you should not create speculative problems and think too much. This will not make you happier) .

Portrait of a non-Russian girl

Lisa T., 20 years old, came to St. Petersburg from the Kingdom of Denmark, where everything is calm, in search of new impressions and meetings, and apparently has many similar features in appearance to the mermaid from Copenhagen before her head was sawed off.

She agreed to give an interview, believing that this was a favorite pastime of local idle villagers, something like drinking tea with cranberry jam and bagels.

Russian magazine: Have you watched the first film of the Wachowski brothers “The Matrix”? If you liked the film or didn’t like it, then why?

Lisa T.: Yes, I watched "The Matrix". A very good film, I liked it because it questions our usual ways of thinking and perceiving the world. What is truth (and do we really want to know it)? What's happening to us? What is the purpose of our life? How much do we want to know?

Various philosophical questions of this kind.

RJ: One of the characters in the film, Morpheus, says to Neo, the Chosen One: “Welcome to the desert of reality.” What does this phrase mean to you?

L.T.: A desert is a place where you can walk for a long, long time and see only sand, nothing to eat, nothing to drink, and no one will help you... Maybe the “desert of reality” means that there is no final answer to the question is how we perceive reality, since looking for an answer is like walking through the desert. Everything is in our head and we are helpless in searching for the truth, we can only continue on our way.

RJ: How do you yourself perceive the word “reality”: as an empty abstract term, the entire world around you, the totality of human relationships and interactions, or something completely different?

L.T.: I think that for me reality is what is “real”. This is not an empty abstract term, but the whole world and people around me. However, I am aware that reality can also be a desert. I think about it and try to understand what reality is really like, just like the characters in the movie "The Matrix" do. In my ordinary life, I perceive reality as everything that surrounds me - things, people, relationships and connections between them. And although people live in such distant countries as Africa or Australia, I believe that they have the same reality with me, although we are different and live and feel differently.

Reality plays a very important role for me all the time, because I find myself, act and make decisions in it. I am the main character in my life and believe that what I do is "real".

RJ: How is your “reality” structured: is it one for everyone or are there many realities, always united and unchanging or fragmented and fluid, built in accordance with an absolute principle or simply on its own, universal for everyone or to each their own?

L.T.: I think that reality is the same for everyone, although we perceive it differently. Everyone is part of reality, and together we make reality what it is. Everything affects reality, we have freedom of choice and we can influence it, so reality is not universal and flexible. The world is changing, history is changing, evolution, etc. - all this is also reality.

For me now it is important to travel, see new places, become part of other people's reality, observe how different people are and how they feel differently. People's lifestyles are different, but sometimes our feelings are the same.

RJ: Do you have a feeling that reality exists outside of you or only in you, is it friendly to you, neutral or aggressive, harmonious, built on the agreement of its parts, or contradictory, based on opposition and conflict?

L.T.: Reality is around, inside and outside of me. Inside you find thoughts about what is happening outside. Reality is what I make it, and I try to do it in a friendly way. Reality doesn't scare me. There are sometimes situations when I feel helpless, such as if someone dies or an accident occurs, or I think deeply about the meaning of life. But we must learn to live with this feeling of helplessness because we cannot do anything. It is important for me to change my reality in the direction I need. Reality won't be friendly unless you make an effort.

RJ: What is your relationship with reality: do you own and control it, accept it or submit to it, observe, admire or resent it, fight with it or go with its flow?

L.T.: I think I accept reality and try to use it. But I also know that my life depends on my decisions, that I am responsible for my reality. There is no use in fighting or hating reality. For example, my father always wanted to decide for me what I should do with my life, but sometimes (many times!) it turned out that it was better to let me manage my life and make my own decisions.

RJ: How do you perceive yourself, self-aware in the context of reality: as its center, an involuntary participant, an invitee or a stranger? Has your sense of self changed over the course of your life?

L.T.: I think I put myself at the center because my reality is my life. But I also see myself as a participant in the lives of other people and the world as a whole. My reality changed the day I left my parents (even though they were good parents) and became responsible for my own life. It gave me a feeling of freedom and the world opened up to me.

RJ: What does such an attribute of reality as Truth represent for you: does it exist or only seems to exist, can it be proven or can only be taken on faith, can one do without it or is it completely impossible to live?

L.T.: I don’t know what truth is, and I don’t think anyone knows it (the desert of reality). Such a question surpasses the human mind, which is unable to answer it. Some people turn to religion for an answer, but I don't. I trust science, but I think there are limits to what we can know. Not everything can be verified by human reason. There are philosophical questions that we cannot answer. The answer could be God or something else absolute. I studied philosophy for a year at university and read about the different answers that philosophers give to this question, but I can’t name a single theory that can be considered right. The human mind has its limits.

RJ: Give me a portrait of you against the backdrop of reality. Are you the only reality or just an empty place in it, do you not trust it, are you afraid of it or are you open to it, are you conveniently located in it, are you a full part of it, dust in the wind or a question mark in it?

L.T.: In the general context, I don’t see anything significant. But in my world, in reality, where I am at the center, I am not an empty place. I try to make myself more meaningful through the people and things that surround me.

Commentary on the portrait of a non-Russian girl

The portrait of Lisa T. is, as one might assume, a portrait of our future Russian generation, which will gradually lose the metaphysical frenzy characteristic of the Russian mentality and the wild “bells and whistles” of wild Russian capitalism, but will not yet fall under the spell of the bewitching, relaxing siren song of postmodernism.

Along with ontological doubts (because looking for an answer is like walking through the desert. Everything is in our head, and we are helpless in searching for the truth, we can only continue on our way.), a feeling of existential angst (But we must learn to live with such a feeling of helplessness , since we cannot do anything.) and the nostalgic desire to maintain a “central” place in our subjective world (I am the main character in my life...) there will also be a sober assessment of the limits of what is permissible for a person (The human mind has its limits.) , orientation to praxis, positive doing of the world (Reality is what I make it, and I try to do it in a friendly way.), avoidance of infantilism (My position in reality changed the day I left my parents.) and transformative radicalism (It is useless to fight or hate reality.) and self-reliance with recognition of the Other's right to participate (I try to make myself more significant with the help of the people and things that surround me).

The role of correspondent was performed by Anatoly Vlasov