[jamesakirk]

Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen:

"Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch into pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it."

- Andrei Tarkovsky

Andrei Tarkovsky: Interviews, pg. 71 Univ. Press of Mississippi, 2006

Edit: as others have pointed out, my surprise at this parallel may tell you less about the uniqueness of Tarkovsky's world view, and more about my ignorance of Orthodox Christianity.

[coldtea]

>Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen

Let's add that this is not by chance: the irreducibility of experience (especially divine experience) is a core motive of Orthodox Christianity as well (which also has a long tradition of mystics).

[dhdondldn]

The idea that experience is not irreducible is rare. Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements?

Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

[0xBABAD00C]

> Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements?

I do. Considering consciousness, a property of animals on a planet in a star system, irreducible and more fundamental than, say, quarks and bosons, seems laughably wrong to me. On the same level of wrong as medieval "geocentric" world views. I have a hard time imagining how those accomplished physicists think this way..

[Barrin92]

Reminds me of James Jeans, another idealist physicist, which I feel like is becoming slightly more popular again of a view.

"The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."

[nineteen999]

> Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements?

About half of HN, who think that we will be able to manufacture some form of AGI that should have the right to be treated as the equal of humans.

[whatshisface]

A person who thinks that animals are nothing more than colonies of abnormally cooperative eukaryotes may still dislike animal cruelty on the basis that anyone who is capable of it would be capable of cruelty to humans, or that practicing one prepares you for the other. I imagine the same argument could be made to apply to robots, even if you wanted to sidestep the machine consciousness question.

P.S. this argument is a very familiar one if you recognize it - if you have ever heard the advice not to date anyone who's mean to waiters, that's the same idea - that whatever causes cruelty, causes it against all targets.

[nineteen999]

I feel like your comment is entirely gibberish. In the real world, nobody mistakes autism for intelligence.

[nefitty]

I pre-commit to supporting AI and automaton rights. I am an ethical vegetarian.

[nineteen999]

I consider people with that mindset to be an enemy of humanity. And I love animals. Some of them are cute, and some of them are delicious.

[nefitty]

That's a personal failure of empathy. Any reasoning beyond need is a rationalization. Humans can survive without killing animals.

Nice try though.

[mwattsun]

That's not really Zen though. Zen is expanding your awareness of the present moment to experience it without interpretation, including emotional interpretation, to experience it as it is. Zen is freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now. Zen is the calm eye of the storm without attachments to thoughts or emotions, especially those that we use to identify who we are. Zen is a hot cup of tea and the sounds of birds singing.

[lemmsjid]

I might be missing a nuance in what you're saying, because it seems like the way you are describing Zen is indeed similar to what Tarkovsky is describing above. Specifically, he says, "If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it." As you describe Zen, it is "freedom from the constant need to assign meaning and experience feelings about where you are right now". I.e., not interrupting your experience of Tarkovsky's films by attempting to assign meaning.

[mwattsun]

Andrei Tarkovsky:

> If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens

> What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be.

That's great and I like introspective and symbolic films, but arousing feelings is not Zen. Tarkovsky wants us to think less and feel more, which I think characterizes most art. Some people might say something like "I feel good about cats but I feel bad about dogs" (as an example) or "there is a special melancholy in the dawn fog." This is all well and good and what it is to be human, but feelings are subjective and about personal identity and experience. There is nothing inherently good or bad about one or the other when you compare cats and dogs. That's about you, not about cats or dogs. Likewise, there is nothing melancholic about morning fog. Other people might feel intense joy at they way it burns off as the sun rises. Others might feel sad and go back to sleep.

Zen not only gets under the thinking, it gets under the feeling, to experience reality as it is without judgement or processing. Zen is seeing things clearly and calmly. It's clarity without the filter of thoughts and feelings.

I can't know how other people experience the world so I can't tell if my way of achieving clarity is the way other people, such as a Japanese Zen master, experience clarity. Tarkovsky may have achieved his clarity through emotional intelligence and that's what he puts in his films. I'm grateful to have found a way that works for me. It's really no concern of mine that other's have a different way. There is no one way but that's an opinion of mine. When in doubt, I meditate and wait for the clarity to return.

[s1artibartfast]

>Zen is seeing things clearly and calmly. It's clarity without the filter of thoughts and feelings.

Based on my my understanding from practitioners, zen is not characterized by absence or elimination of feelings, but not letting them control your behavior or your thoughts. You don't have to feel like a robot, but you might choose to react like one. There are things in life that are beautiful, happy, and sad. The point is not to deny this, but experience it without forming Attachments and reactions. To this end, I have heard of zen masters that can go from laughter to tears simply by shifting their focus. Similarly, there is a rich tradition of very evocative zen Buddhist art.

The film maker may differ in that he wants to inspire a reaction, or maybe not.

[mwattsun]

Elimination of feelings is not a desired outcome and if extreme can be classed a disorder such and depression, dissociative disorder or psychopathy.

I found Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Dialectic Behavior Therapy (DBT and Wise Mind) very helpful in dealing with troublesome emotions and then Zen which, as you say, is about not letting them control your behavior or your thoughts but calmly observing them come and go. This is also part of ancient Greek and Roman philosophies such as Stoicism and part of what ancients like Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus were getting at.

https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/marcus-aurelius-quotes

https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/epictetus-quotes

[maroonblazer]

Feelings, for the most part, are intertwined with thoughts. This is what makes CBT and its ilk so valuable. For example...

I'm feeling panicked because I've been given a new manager. I think the new manager may not see the value of my role. Turns out, the new manager is impressed with my experience and has heard good things about me from others. They believe me to be an important asset to the team. My feeling of panic evaporates.

I'd venture that at least 80% of what accounts for 'stress' in the 21st century can be chalked up to the stories we tell ourselves.

[hardwaregeek]

I really agree with this. I find it so superficial when people attempt to find a singular “meaning” to a film. A film is not about one thing. It’s an experience. Reducing it down to one idea removes the complexity and nuance of that experience.

[zaat]

According to the article he was agnostic.

[stareblinkstare]

You say "but" as if Orthodox Christians are contrary to this. Put another way, there is a greater overlap between the thinking (and feeling, and believing) embedded in religions than we can garner just from reading.

[coldtea]

Came to write just that. In fact had just finished my comment when I saw yours :-)