Alright, the title speaks of my topic of the day- what I will say is really beyond the scope of the plot, so pardon me as I bring the nukes in.
One question that many people would ask about Inception is about the outcome of the spinning totem. Basically in the movie, Leonardo's totem would indicate objectively if he is within dream-scape, or is he back in reality. If it falls, its real, if it doesn't, he probably needs to wake up his idea.
Another question that was brought into the table is the 'fallacy' of his wife- that reality itself is no more than an idealized dream of a higher reality. One grave implication is that should she be right, then there technically can be an infinity of transcendental realities. In the movie it is implied that she is wrong, and there is an objective reality that the characters can return to.
Well, lets start by asking the same question as many would- would the totem fall?
First Postulate
On hindsight, yes. All implications points to the outcome that the totem should fall, since 1) it rounds up nicely the whole plot of 3 dreams. 2) it proves his wife is wrong (and we really hope his wife is). 3) Leonardo gets his happy ending, which is like awwww. Of course it would save me the entire problem of going into the transcendental problem, and I really dislike thinking too much over something that someone's ideas (movie) when I could really be doing more constructive things like cleaning my room or going to the zoo.
Whats wrong with the first postulate?
But the happy way out falls short of reason should more thought be brought into the movie. Not in terms of pure critique, but also in imagery and depiction. Fundamentally, the movie would be portraying dreams and reality rather inaccurately. The major reason? There is too much a hint of transcendental idealism, than transcendental realism within the movie itself. This leads to my belief that the 'dreams' the characters have, are not true mental (idealized) perceptions, but rather objectively (realized) shared perceptions of a diminished (but evident) reality.
HUH? Okay, so we have to go deeper into the rabbit hole. By doing this, we will have to bring into question the concepts of transcendental idealism and transcendental realism.
A bit on the 2 nukes: Transcendental Idealism and Realism
What is transcendental idealism, or transcendental realism?
Loosely speaking, transcendental idealism is a Kantian postulate that humans may only appreciate, and experience reality as how they appear (or are idealized by the person) to be. Strictly speaking, space and time (reality) is no more than relationships between idealized proponents, since the mind does not perceive distance in and of themselves, but rather relates it in relation to what it deems as distance and duration. Simply speaking to the individual, whatever bullshit there may be, it is all a dream, and the dream is the end of all things.
On the other hand, transcendental realism is a philosophical idea that there is an objective reality the dreamers (or every human) know consciously, which transcends the Kantian transcendental idealism. What it really is is just adding on a counterargument on top of Kant's icing- yes, transcendental idealism holds, but humans are able to understand, and transcendental that idealism to appreciate that there is a reality out there that is really independent of what we may fancifully dream it to be.
A note on realism, idealism, TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM and TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM
So one important thing we have to clear before we proceed on- realism does not equate to transcendental realism, and idealism does not equate to transcendental idealism. Realism and idealism can be used in conjunction, since there is no possible way to know, or verify if a plane of existence is real or ideal.
Yet, the concept of transcendental realism means that realism is the terminal (or highest) form of this plane of existence. The concept of transcendental idealism means that idealism is the terminal form; however, we must understand that it does not make sense to believe in a mind floating in non-existence. So if we were to advocate transcendental idealism in its pure form, we're going to have an infinite plane of existences, or 'realities' so as to speak.
To keep things clear, we will use the following words in this style.
1) reality, 2) idealizations, 3) TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM and 4) TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM.
So what is the implications of Inception to these 2 nukes?
Okay coming back from la-la-land, so how does these two grandfather's story have in relation to a simple movie of Inception? Putting these concepts back, if it is indeed true that the totem doesn't fall, objective reality cannot hold- since his wife postulate that reality itself is but another idealized dream would bear truth. Since objectivity cannot hold, then we will have an infinite loop of idealizations. The concept of TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM, or that all apparent reality is no more than part of a mental construe of a higher idealization (or dream) would thus be the defining theme of the movie.
If the totem fell, the concepts of TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM would hold. So in other words, there is a base level of reality (instead of an infinite cycle of dreams), there is objectivity, and there is a terminal reality for us to return to. Life then, wouldn't be so complex.
in conclusion:
A) TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM = totem don't fall
B) TRANSCENDENTAL REALISM = totem falls
So what is the big problem?
1) There is a some hints that its just a movie about dreams (idealizations)
The big problem only arises when we start confusing one transcendent for another. In a setting of inception, where the idea of a team of people invading a single person's dreams, the natural concept of idealism has to hold. Since its one person's (idealized) dream that is the reality of things, and the dream-scape of the person would really be the world for everybody to do their work within. This was mentioned in good detail, that the people in the dream-scape are merely projections of his mind, and how the team has to remain low to avoid detection by the 'god' of this transcendentally diminished world (aka the dreamer). Another obvious clue is when the dreamer has the power to warp the world as he wishes and bend all logical boundaries.
If the movie remains faithfully to the concept of idealism, we should be seeing a disjointed, highly perceptive and illogical muddle of dreams. The movie would make sense completely, but it would not be worth watching, this was pointed out by Harvard University dream researcher Deirdre Barrett.
So naturally, aspects of reality have to be incorporated within. And it did.
2) There is also strong hint that the themes of the movie is more than just dreams, but a play on the concept of realities
In the movie we see a lot of clues that point that the 'dreams' the characters are transversing are NOT idealizations, but actually realities on their own, no matter how warped it may seem. In the movie we see how many people are able to not only share the same dream, but to also bring in idealisms of their own to alter the parent dream of the target dreamer. The introduction of Leonardo's wife, and the train, and how Page manages to alter the reality of Leonardo's dream, hints that the 'dream' they are in doesn't belong fully Leonardo's but rather is a dream-scape originally from him, but subjective to modification, and re-conceptualization by other people. Simply speaking- think of it as a shared dream.
3) The problem of depicting it in the idea of realities- in form of a shared dream.
What is the problem with that? A shared dream, strictly speaking, is not a 'dream', and cannot be an idealization, because it does not belong to a single person's mind (ideal). You would hardly call the net-scape an idealized dream, because the world wide web is verifiable and accessible to more than a single person. You would even not call this reality a idealization, since (excluding God) to whose dream does it belong then? Rather, we would very conveniently call this a reality. But not in the case of inception- their shared dream appears like a reality.
4) A series of Realities imply TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM
4a) When there is a series of realities, you get an infinite loop of realities.
4b) In a case of a reality in another, the smaller reality becomes an idealization.
4c) The concept of TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM holds.
Alright, so its not really a simple dream after all where we may wake up to a real world where falling off your toilet bowl means ouch, but rather like second-life, to lose oneself within. Yet, its the idea of a second life, or by all means a third or fourth life, that proves his wife to be CORRECT- that reality itself is no more than an idealized dream of a higher realism . There is no terminal end to this series of realities, each of which is a shared dream of another bigger shared dream, and an infinite loop of TRANSCENDENTAL IDEALISM will occur.
5) Meaning
And since Leonardo is forever in a dream, the totem should never fall.
The reason of limbo does not answer the question of the falling totem
There is speculation of a 3rd indicator- a final possibility that Leonardo is in limbo, or an idealized state of mind at the end of the show. While the concept of limbo implies that his body must be somewhere real (and there must be a real terminal end), we must bear in mind that it is NOT known if he is alive or dead at the end of the movie. So while this remains in doubt, the existence of a limbo cannot answer the question should the totem fall or not.
(Note: The question of the following totem answers the question if he is in limbo, but not vice versa)
Afterword
Well, in light of the fact that Inception is a movie that necessarily blends realistic aspects with idealized aspects to give the story weight, yet credibility (we saw what would happen if pure idealizations was used in); this very technical fact would imply that the totem should and should not fall at the same time. Should we wish to give maximum credit to the aspects and surrealism of the story, we would naturally have believed that the totem would not fall. But bearing in mind that the main target audiences of the film, we ought not deviate too far from the intended themes of 'just a play of dreams in life' and simply accept the belief that it will eventually fall.
Personally, I do not write this post in blatant criticism of the film, or the movie. I would agree that it would be best to leave it as a cliff-hanger, and allow both the layman and those in pursuit of deeper themes, to work their and see meaning own conclusions as they deem fit. Please do not use this post against me, or as an objective argument against others. The concepts of realism and idealism really transcend the boundaries of human knowledge, even in this plane of existence as I type, and much as I would like to speculate, I do not wish to assume that I know the answer of this question.
Enough madness- we need to get back to reality (what reality?)
No comments:
Post a Comment