Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not sure what took me so long to discover this thread, but the silver lining is that I have TONS to check out now.
Not really looking to have my mind blown, but I spend a disgusting amount of time on the internets just doing nothing. At the very least, I'll stumble upon things that'll challenge my perceptions and understandings of the world around me.
Long way of saying "subscribed."
Reps to everyone that contributes here.
Not sure what took me so long to discover this thread, but the silver lining is that I have TONS to check out now.
Not really looking to have my mind blown, but I spend a disgusting amount of time on the internets just doing nothing. At the very least, I'll stumble upon things that'll challenge my perceptions and understandings of the world around me.
Long way of saying "subscribed."
Reps to everyone that contributes here.
Watched the film predestination today, with Ethan hawke, I reccomend anybody who frequents this thread, to watch it, really good story, concepts, that will make you think.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2397535/
The life of a time-traveling Temporal Agent. On his final assignment, he must pursue the one criminal that has eluded him throughout time.
For a read up^
Pm for dvd stream.
Just watched it. Pretty crazy, definitely got me thinking. What were your thoughts?
Ahh okay. I thought you meant Thoth specifically. I don't really vibe with Crowley or the Luciferian crowd. I have found some very knowledge people within Blavatsky's later created Theosophical Society. You might find this article interesting in regards to the name Lucifer.Crowley, Blvatsky and the Luciferian crowd seem to be on this same bit.
Crowley, Blvatsky and the Luciferian crowd seem to be on this same bit.
Just watched it. Pretty crazy, definitely got me thinking. What were your thoughts?
It was a pretty thought provoking deep film, I think everyone can take something unique away from the film, there are a few views on this film which I thought were all I will share with you below.. Let me know what you think..
it'll help you a great deal to understand if you identify and separate the "split personalities" that exist within the entity of John/Jane.
What is interesting is that these split personalities never occur all at once, but are fractured throughout the heterarchy of the Predestination Paradox occurring in the movie.
To Quote Douglas Hofstadter,
And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind — a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is — here goes a first stab, anyway — not a physical circuit but an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive "upward" shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one's sense of departing ever further from one's origin, one winds up, to one's shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop. (pp. 101-102)
Understanding the above notion will help you further enjoy the premise of this movie.
Further on, understanding that the entity of John/Jane is a stream of information cycling in the feedback loop through time will help too.
Basically, only as Fizzle Bomber does the entire information of who/what John/Jane is becomes whole, only Fizzle Bomber 'understands' that his existence is basically a self-sustaining relay race of information cycling infinitely in time as a strange loop.
It's a succession of events forming an heterarchy in which each crossings of himself (Himself kidnapping Baby Himself, Himself delivering Baby Himself to the Orphanage, Himself meeting and convincing Young Man Himself at a bar to commit murder, Young Himself chance meeting and falling in love with Young Woman Himself, Himself coming back to retrieve Young Man Himself and convince him that abandoning Young Woman Himself is for the best, etc. etc.)
is all predestined because it's a temporal paradox which creates a Strange Loop in the space-time continuum. Basically each event where Himself interacts with another 'version' of Himself is a hierarchy of events which end up creating, again to quote Douglas Hofstadter, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive "upward" shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one's sense of departing ever further from one's origin, one winds up, to one's shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop."
What I meant by explicate the ending, is that you must try to consider Fizzle Bomber as the merging of all different 'states' of his being into one. Fizzle Bomber IS the culmination/beginning of the entire ordeal. Fizzle Bomber is the last piece of domino in the chain, which is predestined to fall and cause the fall of the first domino in the chain. As Fizzle Bomber dies(last domino), Fizzle Bomber is created(first domino) out of John, sustaining the succession of events to basically start over in it's new cycle.
In my opinion, beyond the whole paradox thing, this movie is actually a rather poetic, beautiful tragic love story. The paradox is the premise, but what truly makes this movie compelling, in my opinion, is that through the transgender/self-love twists, this movie not only illustrates well the Predestination Paradox, it gives a complex portrayal of an emotional strange loop so strong that it "Can't be paradoctored."
Purpose, Love and Hatred are the driving themes of this movie, time travel is only the premise.
I'll discuss the final scene and ending in (Spoilers): John: The snake that eats it's own tail.. Forever and ever.
It'll help if you understand that Fizzle Bomber acts out of absolute love for John/Jane. To simplify this, instead of seeing Ethan Hawke as the Fizzle Bomber, try to envision the face of Sarah Snook as the Fizzle Bomber. To simplify further, let's just call Fizzle Bomber Jane, and the one confronting him John.
Fizzle Bomber/Jane is desperately in love with John, but John is desperately driven by a desire to avenge Jane/John's suffering by murdering Fizzle Bomber.
When Older John meets Younger Jane in the park and they fall in love, John recognizes Jane, but Jane is unable to recognize John. The way the final scene is orchestrated, it's virtually the opposite of that encounter. Consider that Fizzle Bomber is an Older Jane finally being reunited with a Younger John, but this time, only Jane can recognize John, and John is unable to recognize Jane inside the Fizzle Bomber.
Jane/John's incredible love for John/Jane and John/Jane's incredible hatred for Fizzle Bomber/Jane/John is the essence of the loop, the moving force which sets every event in motion over and over.
So, understood as such, the final scene is a very poignant tragic love reunion of two lovers who are destined to always be blind-sided to 'the other'.
The final confrontation is a scene where both parties confess their emotions. Fizzle Bomber/Jane/John is confessing her utter love for John/Jane/Fizzle Bomber, while John/Jane/Fizzle Bomber is confessing his utter hatred for Fizzle Bomber/Jane/John.
Changing the name/faces in the script will help illustrate and I hope appreciate this:
[John enters the Laundrymat]
Jane: Oh my god.. You look good.. I missed you.
John: ..You're the Fizzle Bomber?
Jane: [Laughs] We always hated that name, remember?
John: [Astonished] ..You're a murderer.
Jane: ..You're disappointed in me, right? I remember that, I do. But when the dust settles.. I think you'll see that we did the right thing.
John: I will never become you.
Jane: Some people say that it's fate. But you and I, we know, some things are predestined. I made you who you are, you made me who I am. It's a paradox, right? But it can't be.. paradoctored. [Psychotic laughter]
Jane: [Overjoyed] And now you're free and you found me and we can finally be together!
John: .. I'll never become you.
Jane: Don't say that. Don't say that.
John: .. I will never become you and I will not let you kill those people!
Jane: [Angry/Feeling Betrayed] Wait Wait Wait, What, you're gonna live a regular life, with that *****, Alice, from the antique store? She has a stupid cat, she has a disgusting birthmark on her left hip, she's a lousy *beep* cook! Okay trust me, she can't handle our secrets! She can't, trust me! She's not right for us!
John: You have no idea what is right for me!
Jane: Okay, okay, listen. All we have is each other. It is ALL we've ever had. Now, if you shoot me.. You'll become me. You get it? That's.. how it happens. If you want to break the chain, you have to not kill me.. But try.. To love me.. Again..
John: [Tearing Up]..What if I put him in front of you.. ..The man who ruined your life..
Jane: Yeah yeah yeah... Forget all that. We can have a future together.
John: ..Would you kill him.. To save thousands?
Jane: ... You wanna know what we're gonna do tomorrow? [Excited]
John: [Breaking Down] No.
[Gunshots/Death and Rebirth of Fizzle Bomber/Beginning of a new cycle in the loop]
[A Younger John listens to a tape recorded by the new cycle Fizzle Bomber/Jane at the beginning of his career as a TTA]
New Cycle Fizzle Bomber/Jane: [Talking to a Younger John through a recording] Here you are.. At the beginning of your new life. It can be overwhelming, knowing the future you're about to create.. Knowing the purpose of that life. You know who she is. and you understand who you are. And now maybe you're ready to understand who I am.. You see I.. I love her too. You'll have to make tough choices. You'll influence the past. Can we change our futures? I.. I don't know.The only thing that I know for sure.. ..Is that you are the best thing that's ever happened to me. I miss you dreadfully.
This reply sums it up quite nice:
The movie does actually stick to classical timespace continuum and laws of physics / relativity spot on, you just happened to not see it because it takes place before the movie. But: the movie is full of hints of the original events (the rooster, purpose, trancendence of the inevidable destiny no matter how much you change spacetime).
Before the paradox (call this iteration/loop 0), the child has a natural mother and father, and does not live in an orphanage. The child does have the dualsex anomaly though, and is raised as a boy/man having most visible traits of a male specimen.
The boy grows up to be a man, starts working for SpaceCorp as an agent, travels back in time doing missions, but starts doing it too much, gets disoriented / psychotic, and starts a relationship with his own natural (in iteration 0 before the paradox) unparadoxed mother (denmark-syndrome). He impregnates her, and at the time his sperm fertilizes her egg he ceases to exist in the original "version" - a paradox takes place and we are now in an alternate timeline (iteration 1), he will immidiatly become different.
The natural mother now never meets the original father, the child now is his own father, but not yet his own mother, child grows up - this time grown up as a girl, the older version from (iteration 1) travels back in time and starts a relationship with his younger girl-self iteration-2 (reversed denmark-syndrome), in which he - feeling guilty - kidnaps the baby (which no longer is a product of his natural mother/father, but the product of himself purely on both sides) in regret of the whole mess, so he tries to travel back to a totally different time (1945) to leave his baby-self at an unknown orphanage in hopes of making the paradox stop.
Now the movie starts, the rest you've seen. The rooster and the orphanage is the best clues that there is "something" before the whole chicken-and-the-egg paradoxial situation, namely the roosters "cum" which is the natural events before the paradox leading up to triggering the singularity of the endless loops. And the orphanage: There is no other reason for him to leave the child at an orphanage, other than to try to stop a mess he himself has made and feels regret about
It's only after the movie starts and the paradox has allready taken place that he continues to place the baby there each loop simply because if he doesnt continue to do so,he will cease to exist since he now longer is the product of a natural mother/father, but merely a product of two timetravel-imposed iterations of himself. From that point on if he doesn't continue to work as an agent, fails to deliver the baby, or fail to impregnate himself, he will stop existing alltogether.
PS: All the iterations/loops happens in rapid increasing exponential curve / as an infinite singularity event, so only the individuals caught in the loop will percieve it as "linear in time" but it all happens simultaniously when the paradox is triggered (when going from iteration 0 -> 1), like an event horizon: after that point there is no return from that paradox, and it's impossible to stop the loop by any means. Any attempt to kill the younger version will immediatly eradicate the older version who initially attempted to kill the younger version and so fourth, making any means - both non lethal or lethal to stop the iterations impossible.
Also, the first event at iteration 0, where he goes back to impregnate his own first natural mother isnt by coincidence, this is the actual experiment imposed by spaceCorp's mr. Robertson, to proove/disprove a number of theories they want to put to the test:
A: that its actually possible to create a paradoxal version of yourself with no possible return to your normal natural-born state.
B: Will the conciousness of the timetraveller survive the iterations / new alternate timelines, and
C: will two different beings (alternate versions of yourself) with similar destinies make the same choices (since john/jane from iteration 0 is actually a different person than john/jane from iteration 1,2 and any later iteration). Each iteration there is a new spermcell from a new iteration-version of himself impregnating a new egg in a new version of herself endlessly, meaning john/jane is actually a "cloned" individual when a new alternate timeline is created and the current john/jane ceases to exist along with the current timeline that was just alternated. (almost like in the movie "The prestige", he never teleports, he gets "cloned" by time&space itself, but in that movie he needs to kill of the "original" every time himself by force since the teleport is in reality a timetravel-device, but the time he travels is less than a second, so he ends up with two versions of himself in the same timeline, one original, and one timetraveller who traveled one second into the future). In that sense there are no real clones, both are actually the original, but from different timelines.
The movie could have just done that to make it easy to understand that all iterations of john/jane are the "original", but from different alternate timelines/realitites, but they chose to complicate it with putting in the impregnation/child into the mix.
spaceCorp wants to find out if their conciosness is somehow transferred into the new iterated version, if so - it is proof that conciousness/"soul" and even purpose is reincarnatable into new specimens and that they are not bound by timespace continuum.
spaceCorp is there the whole time in the background "pushing" in jane/john down a certain path making sure the experiment goes the way it should be in terms of events enforced by Mr. Robertson giving him "missions" all the time, which in reality are incentives. The bombings are just a sideeffect of jane/johns versions developing a psychosis due to all these strange / looped and paradoxial events, in which spaceCorp quickly uses as a bait to make sure jane/john stays on the path of conducting the experiment, which is also hinted throughout the movie "We have learned so much from the Fizzle bomber, and we wouldn't have been where we're at without him".
The movie could offcourse have included iteration 0 in the beginning, but then it would have become too clear what is actually happening and why, leaving out all the fun and thought for the viewer to ponder about afterwards, so instead it gives it away as subtle clues, which i favor over getting it "spelled out" in front of me in a patronizing way underestemating the intelligence of the viewer.
If i want movies / plots that are allready pre-drawn with the lines in the "connect the dots" I would go watch CSI,NCIS,NCSI,CSINCI florida, CSINICY washington or any tv-show with real peopl.. teenage-actors on ADHD-TV (disney XD, nick, cartoon network etc.)
This movie leaves most by subtle hints only to be discovered, which is what makes it intelligent and makes it a good watch, and will make me want to watch it again just to look for more clues and cameo hints. The movie relies on the hints and the plot instead of a 600.000.000 trillion FX-hollywood blockbuster budget, and would therefore probarbly bore the hell out of a 12-year old, which (imo) is a good thing.
I agree with you that the main driveforce to us the viewer is this sick lovestory, but to the plot itself (if you were one of the characters) then the loop wasnt created in order for them to have their lovestory. The purpose / motive for creating the loop in the first place I believe is to experiment on how much change you can get away with before it takes over concious memories, or to confirm / deny that destiny, purpose and memories trancends time&space itself. (survives the iterations of the loop).
Everything you say about the loveaffair, feelings and motivations though to keep driving the loop on its way makes sense, I just don't let that exlude the fact that the loop is infact created by some very complex events that are non-paradoxical.
I've mentioned earlier that I believe he is first born by natural parents and brought up as a boy, and goes back to first impregnate his natural mother to eliminate his natural father from the process, then he regrets the mess he's made and tries to undo it by fist taking the baby back to 1945 to prevent himself from immediatly getting 19 years younger (if baby is brought up in 1964 then future-him will be 19 years younger aswell, so baby has to be brought up in 1945). He also leaves baby at orphanage, with some baby-girl clothes hoping that he will be brought up as a girl to prevent her-himself to become a time-agent for spaceCorp.
When he later, in 1963 gets news of that the girl-himself gets into a program for spaceCorp after all, he hurries in making her-himself pregnant instead to get her cast out of the spaceCorp program hoping to break the loop. He has now effectively "breed" his own natural mother and father out of the picture, and the paradox takes place and will loop from that point on. He still has to kidnap the baby though and bring it back to 1945 - again to prevent himself from getting 19 years younger in a blink, since he is originally born in 1945 before the whole paradox started.
Later, when in the laundry-shop, shooting his other self will make no difference, the loop can't be broken either way, since the key issues keeping the loop is A: making himself pregnant, and B: putting the baby at the orphanage in the correct time and place to be able to impregnate that baby later on at the right age and time in order for him to not experience getting younger/older.
If he shoots old bomber-himself, the loop just ends there for the the older one, the shooter-himself lives on keeps using the device, travels more, become insane and becomes the bomber.
If he does not shoot the bomber-himself, then they might end up in a gay-marriage, live happily ever after, but the loop will still restart, since by that time he has allready impregnated the girl in 1963, and allready brought the baby back to 1945. Whatever he does after delivering the baby wont break the loop, it will only break that current iteration and reset it to its original state.
Anyhow, I dont believe one possibility automatically excludes another, and I believe in both your logic, and mine. Your logic answers the whole "why continue doing this?"-question, while my logic answers "How did it start?", both are true and needed (imo).
I don't believe he wrote the plot to simply be a selfcreated paradox with no start, why do that when its been done so many times before when you can do something not done before in movies/plots: A paradox with an actual natural start, starts with possibility, and changes into impossibility, or maybe I give him to much credit.
There's too many hints about something natural and obvious before the whole situation of the paradox. The rooster is one clue. In the classical question of the chicken and the egg, the idea is that its a paradox, but the joke-version brings in a natural event that counters the whole paradox, the rooster and its sperm came first. Also, the fact that bartender-himself tells the joke to sex-operated-himself signals that they both know the answer and loves that they both have a love/hate relationship to that joke because they both know that they originally at one time came from a natural origin and not from themselves.
Also, the song on the jukebox "I am my own grandfather" is the best clue because he acutually is his own grandfather, but if there's no non-paradoxical start (a very first loop/iteration) then each iteration would be exactly like the first as far as babymaking goes, he would never become grandfather, because the previous version of him ceases to exist every time he impregnates himself again. in a self-created loop there will always only be the current loop/iteration, no "previous" one.
If it all starts with a natural father though that he needs to "breed" out of the picture, he will have to impregnate his real natural mother, then the offspring needs to impregnate itself. The baby in which the first girl-himself then gives birth to will then have itself as mother, itself as father and the bartender as grandfather and uncle.
The post-sex-op half-paradoxial offspring the bartender meets at the bar in 1970 is always the one sent by the bartender to impregnate itself back in 1963 since the bartender cant impregnate the half-paradoxed version because the half-paradoxed version isnt the same person and then the bartender would just be another natural father, and you would always just end up with a half-paradoxed baby and he would never become a grandfather.
Break down - self-created-loop (wrong way):
baby is born, becomes girl, meets self-post-op, becomes pregnant, baby is born, kidnapped, brought back to 1945, becomes girl, meets self-post-op etc. Loop just runs its current iteration over and over endlessly, the bartender never becomes a grandfather.
Break down - natural start, but doing it the wrong way:
natural (bartender) child has natural mother and father, goes back in time and makes own mother pregnant.
new baby has a natural mother, but is his own father, meaning the new baby isnt the bartender at all but a new person, like a brother and self-father-of at the same time. (for the baby to actually and fully be the bartender they would both need to have the same mother and father, in which they dont. The baby's father is the bartender, but the bartenders father is some natural random guy.)
You now have a bartender and a baby, two completely different persons. bartender kidnaps baby, brings baby to orphanage in 1945. The original bartender still grows up simultaniously with his natural mother and father in their house.
Now, bartender goes back again in 1963 to impregnate his sibling, the new baby will now be its own mother, but not his own father since the bartender is now the father, meaning it still has one natural parent, this time the father (the bartender) instead of the mother.
baby will never become fully self-created, and the bartender will never become a grandfather.
Break down - natura start, doing it the right way:
natural (bartender) child has natural mother and father, goes back in time and makes own mother pregnant.
new baby has a natural mother, but is his own father, meaning the new baby isnt the bartender at all but a new person, like a brother and self-father-of at the same time. (for the baby to actually and fully be the bartender they would both need to have the same mother and father, in which they dont. The baby's father is the bartender, but the bartenders father is some natural random guy.)
You now have a bartender and a baby, two completely different persons. bartender kidnaps baby, brings baby to orphanage in 1945. The original bartender still grows up simultaniously with his natural mother and father in their house.
Now, bartender goes back to 1970 to talk the now grown up post-sex-op male-"sibling" impregnating his pre-sex-op girl-self, the new baby will now be its own mother, aswell as its own father, with the bartender being the grandfather.
You end up with three different individuals.
1: The bartender with a natural mother and father.
2: The male/female-half-natural child of the bartender and their natural mother, same mother as the bartender has.
3: The baby made by the the male/female-half-naturals, grandchild of the bartender, and its own mother and father.
The three of them knows this, and they dont have split personalities, they are infact different persons and in love intertweened exept for the half-naturals from 1963, 1964 and 1970, they are the same person and in love with themselves.
Crowley, Blvatsky and the Luciferian crowd seem to be on this same bit.
Ahh okay. I thought you meant Thoth specifically. I don't really vibe with Crowley or the Luciferian crowd. I have found some very knowledge people within Blavatsky's later created Theosophical Society. You might find this article interesting in regards to the name Lucifer.
This Link contains many more articles available online written by members of the Theosophical Society. I have found many of them to contain interesting, thought provoking material.
I personally think Crowley was possessed at times and u can tell the difference in his writings from when he is or isn't. And Blavatsky same thing although I think she was slandered by a lot of critics who didn't understand the occult. She's the godmother of theosophy and gets a bad wrap because hitler used some of her occult teachings. Hermetic principle is just a translation of the teachings of Thoth or tehuti to be more precise.
"Thinking is the talking of the soul with itself" - Plato
Watched the film predestination today, with Ethan hawke, I reccomend anybody who frequents this thread, to watch it, really good story, concepts, that will make you think.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2397535/
The life of a time-traveling Temporal Agent. On his final assignment, he must pursue the one criminal that has eluded him throughout time.
For a read up^
Pm for dvd stream.
Just watched it. Pretty crazy, definitely got me thinking. What were your thoughts?