Classical Music Forum banner

Parsifal vs The Matrix

2K views 18 replies 5 participants last post by  Woodduck 
#1 · (Edited)
http://www.andrew-may.com/parsifal.htm

I found this comparison very interesting. Especially since Wagner lays down the foundations for cinema, and The Matrix is probably the pinnacle of late 1990's/early 2000's cinema, culturally. Did the Wachowskis steal from Wagner, or did they draw inspiration from the same waters?
 
#3 ·
The authors is not very well read in history of ideas.
"time and space are merely our way of perceiving things, but otherwise have no reality." To me, that seems an amazing insight for a mid-19th century European.
The phrase in quotes is taken from a text by Wagner. This is almost literally what Kant writes not in the mid 19th century but already in the 1780s: time and space are forms of intuition, "Anschauungsformen" but "things in themselves" are not in space and time. This was the *baseline* from which all later generations of 19th century idealist philosophers started, including of course Schopenhauer.
(Note that this does not include the idea that time could *turn* into space (as in Parsifal Act I "zum Raume wird hier die Zeit"), and it doesn't in relativity theory either, at least not in special RT and not in principle)).
I am not quite sure if late 18th/early 19th philosophers were explicitly aware that classical physics had already "spatialized" time by treating it almost like space in the formalism but I suspect so, certainly Bergson was and I don't think he was the first.)

I don't know much about Parsifal; it is a very peculiar mix as the sources listed in the article indicate (to me it seems overall still more pseudo-christian than pseudo-buddhist) and I have seen only the first Matrix movie once in 1999 when it came out. I have read some other PK Dick but not Valis.
But I think the article misses the main point and takes a minor point, namely the dissolution of Klingsor's illusion as far more important than it is to make the parallel with the Matrix. The main point seems obviously redemption and this concerns almost everyone in the opera: Amfortas, Parsifal, Kundry, also the rest of the Grail knights (as they are bound up with Amfortas) and arguably the traitor Klingsor as well (in any case he is an example how NOT to try to achieve redemption). The sense illusion is local to trap the knights, it is not a universal illusion like in gnosticism or some schools of buddhism. Neither is the redemption achieved by merely realizing that something is illusory (otherwise there would not be a time gap between Acts 2 and 3 with Parsifal doing all kinds of stuff instead of directly returning with the spear), the guilt of the characters in need of redemption is real, most explicitly shown in the wound that does not heal but also Kundry's wandering and "enslavement" to Klingsor etc.
 
#4 · (Edited)
The authors is not very well read in history of ideas.

The phrase in quotes is taken from a text by Wagner. This is almost literally what Kant writes not in the mid 19th century but already in the 1780s: time and space are forms of intuition, "Anschauungsformen" but "things in themselves" are not in space and time. This was the *baseline* from which all later generations of 19th century idealist philosophers started, including of course Schopenhauer.
(Note that this does not include the idea that time could *turn* into space (as in Parsifal Act I "zum Raume wird hier die Zeit"), and it doesn't in relativity theory either, at least not in special RT and not in principle)).
I am not quite sure if late 18th/early 19th philosophers were explicitly aware that classical physics had already "spatialized" time by treating it almost like space in the formalism but I suspect so, certainly Bergson was and I don't think he was the first.)
I agree the time/space thing was lifted from Schopenhauer/Kant, Wagner was intimately familiar with both.

You could regard the "edge" of the expanding universe as time turning into space. From this periphery, we leave the material universe and enter the ideal realm of mind, where the kingdom of the grail resides. Or else "here time turns to space" is really just a nonsensical statement, and we are leaving the rational realm and entering the intuitive.

I don't know much about Parsifal; it is a very peculiar mix as the sources listed in the article indicate (to me it seems overall still more pseudo-christian than pseudo-buddhist) and I have seen only the first Matrix movie once in 1999 when it came out. I have read some other PK Dick but not Valis.
But I think the article misses the main point and takes a minor point, namely the dissolution of Klingsor's illusion as far more important than it is to make the parallel with the Matrix. The main point seems obviously redemption and this concerns almost everyone in the opera: Amfortas, Parsifal, Kundry, also the rest of the Grail knights (as they are bound up with Amfortas) and arguably the traitor Klingsor as well (in any case he is an example how NOT to try to achieve redemption). The sense illusion is local to trap the knights, it is not a universal illusion like in gnosticism or some schools of buddhism. Neither is the redemption achieved by merely realizing that something is illusory (otherwise there would not be a time gap between Acts 2 and 3 with Parsifal doing all kinds of stuff instead of directly returning with the spear), the guilt of the characters in need of redemption is real, most explicitly shown in the wound that does not heal but also Kundry's wandering and "enslavement" to Klingsor etc.
I think you are just a "people person", or taking the opera a bit literally.

Not that it isn't nice for everybody to get redemption, but Parsifal (Jesus, Buddha) seeing through Klingsor's (the Devil, Demiurge, demon Mara) materialistic illusion (maya) and overcoming base instinct is how he reclaims the spear (the human soul), which manifests in mystical union when combined with the Grail (God).

The gap between Act II and III is because Parsifal first becomes Disciple/Bodhisattva, one who has tasted enlightenment, but works to further the well-being and enlightenment of others before attaining full Christ-like or Buddhahood status themselves.

Act III is Parsifal doling out redemption; this entire act is denouement. Act II is the climax and main thrust of the opera.
 
#5 ·
An interesting comparison, yes. Thanks for the article. Whilst the Wachowskis (then brothers, now sisters - I wonder how that compares with the mythology?) might well have drawn certain specifics from Parsifal, I suspect it was more to do with the same waters. There are similarities to Lord of the Rings as well, though I'll not set them out here - if you're familair with the story, you can probably spot them.

"Pinnacle of 1990s/2000 cinema, culturally"? Sounds like a grand claim - I'm not sure what it means though.
 
#6 ·
Again, the "illusion" concerns only Klingsor's magic trap that is laid with a particular purpose.
To make a strong point for lifting a universal veil of maya, it would have been much stronger to make the Grail castle an illusion.

It's also not knowledge in the gnostic sense nor mere renunciation but "durch Mitleid wissend", i.e. it is Parsifal's *compassion*, and Kundry's with him and his remembering of the motherly love trumping the seductive illusion. So far more than renunciation or esoteric Gnowledge it is love and compassion that achieve the redemption.
This completely missed in the Matrix analogy. The latter is not wrong but superficial and not very interesting, IMO. The Matrix is much closer to any number of "brain in the vat" etc. philosophical scenarios and SciFi elements than to Parsifal and Buddhism.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Again, the "illusion" concerns only Klingsor's magic trap that is laid with a particular purpose.
To make a strong point for lifting a universal veil of maya, it would have been much stronger to make the Grail castle an illusion.
Wrong. It's not merely the flower-maiden trap, Klingsor's entire kingdom and castle vanish. And the grail castle is already hidden from those unworthy, ie, those too trapped by maya. It makes no sense to make it part of maya.

It's also not knowledge in the gnostic sense nor mere renunciation but "durch Mitleid wissend", i.e. it is Parsifal's *compassion*, and Kundry's with him and his remembering of the motherly love trumping the seductive illusion. So far more than renunciation or esoteric Gnowledge it is love and compassion that achieve the redemption.
Wagner makes it clear it is "an enlightenment through compassion". The sufficiently compassioned are granted a realization about reality's true nature that sets them down the path to enlightenment. This personal realization is also what the Gnostics meant by "gnosis", it is experiential knowledge, not academic.

This completely missed in the Matrix analogy. The latter is not wrong but superficial and not very interesting, IMO. The Matrix is much closer to any number of "brain in the vat" etc. philosophical scenarios and SciFi elements than to Parsifal and Buddhism.
In the Matrix, it is love that transcends the illusion of the Matrix, when Trinity kisses Neo in Movie 1 and Neo restarts Trinity's heart in Movie 2. And do you think Neo's desire to save the human race is not driven by compassion?
 
#9 · (Edited)
I'm presently too lazy and tired to jump into this debate with both feet, but I'll stick a toe in and suggest that neither a Christian nor a Buddhist reading of the opera's symbolism can be carried through consistently. That's what we would expect based on Wagner's personal, idiosyncratic philosophical views, synthesized out of whatever notions he gleaned from both of those traditions and from other writers' commentaries on them. I weight the Christian elements in Parsifal a little heavier than the Buddhist, and Wagner himself called it "this most Christian of works."

As for Parsifal's moment of "enlightenment," which lies at the work's center, I think it has more to do with a Jungian conception of psychological growth than with gnostic insight, Buddhist satori or Christian salvation. Parsifal dresses in traditional religious symbols the same fundamental story which is at the heart of the Ring; both are are stories of man's inner development, of psychological maturation, the growth of consciousness, and particularly of moral consciousness. No religious symbolism - Buddhist, Christian or otherwise - is needed to tell this story, but Wagner's keen insight into the resonances of mythical archetypes and his ability to pare his material down to just those elements that convey his meaning most forcefully make Parsifal, I believe, his most extraordinary dramatic achievement. But "forcefully" doesn't mean "unambiguously," and the very fact that the work synthesizes the incomplete visions of reality embodied in several not entirely compatible religious traditions, and thus gives rise to conflicting views of which of its aspects are most significant, makes it all the more true to life and profound.

Maybe I've stuck in more than a toe. Parsifal is a vortex I find hard to avoid.
 
#11 · (Edited)
As for Parsifal's moment of "enlightenment," which lies at the work's center, I think it has more to do with a Jungian conception of psychological growth than with gnostic insight, Buddhist satori or Christian salvation.
Well Jung was highly influenced by Gnosticism and his much of his psychology is pretty much re-interpreting it into a psychological framework. Jung however would argue that attempts to merge one's ego beyond merely integration with the unconscious, but beyond oneself and into the divine, would result in psychosis. But of course psychiatrists would regard mystic experiences as psychosis.

I'm not sure how familiar Wagner was with Gnosticism, seeing the Nag Hammadi library was not yet discovered, but by blending eastern and western spirituality he seemingly just so happened upon reconstruction of some of its ideas. The legend of Parzival might also be based in part on the Gnostic Cathars, who resided in castles in the south of France and were rumored to be in possession of the Grail (there was even a Nazi grail hunt raiding these castles).

Wagner called Parsifal "Christian", but he was of the belief that contemporary Christians mispracticed their faith, and he had particular disdain for Catholicism. It's clear he had no time for dogma, and wished to re-establish the centrality of compassion to the faith. Hence I think calling Parsifal "Christian" is going to throw people off and be a disservice to most people wanting to become acquainted with the work.

Maybe I've stuck in more than a toe. Parsifal is a vortex I find hard to avoid.
It's a very fun rabbit hole to go down, that's for sure!
 
#18 ·
Your post is very interesting, certainly. I think the problem I have is that Parsifal was written by Wagner, not Carl Jung. Carl Jung's psychiatric work was based primarily around interviews with patients having poorly integrated egos, hence his philosophy is framed around finding the cure via the individuation process. Wagner's life seems instead to be that of a man troubled by metaphysical and spiritual matters. In particular, Schopenhauer's concept of the Will, the early life of Christ, Buddhism, the Upanishads, and Islamic mysticism were all researched and their essence funneled into Parsifal.

If Wagner had a secular, psychological goal about explaining the healthy integration of the ego, I daresay it simply could have been a essay. That is academic knowledge, not experiential. Instead he chose to craft the experience of Parsifal, which is a very peculiar choice if his goal is to stabilize the ego, because Parsifal seems specifically designed to *destabilize* the ego: The way he built Bayreuth in a simple stadium-style to take the audience out of the auditorium, out of daily life itself, and immerse them into the scene. The way the music rises unseen from the depths and engulfs the listener. The way Parsifal is paced to distort and cause us to lose our sense of time. The result is ego-death. When it ends, and the lights come back on, and we a thrust back into our bodies, and we are shaken. We cannot put words to what we have just experienced, to even attempt to describe it in words would bring it diminishment. These indicate the intentions and effects of a mystic experience, and it is my full belief that triggering such an otherworldly experience in the audience was Wagner's primary intention. Certainly he produced a work which has caused many to change the trajectory of their lives. His purpose was not to distill religion into psychology, but a demonstration in the power of the spiritual, and how the mantle in expressing its fundamental truths can be passed from organized religion to art.
 
#19 ·
Your post is very interesting, certainly. I think the problem I have is that Parsifal was written by Wagner, not Carl Jung. Carl Jung's psychiatric work was based primarily around interviews with patients having poorly integrated egos, hence his philosophy is framed around finding the cure via the individuation process. Wagner's life seems instead to be that of a man troubled by metaphysical and spiritual matters. In particular, Schopenhauer's concept of the Will, the early life of Christ, Buddhism, the Upanishads, and Islamic mysticism were all researched and their essence funneled into Parsifal.

If Wagner had a secular, psychological goal about explaining the healthy integration of the ego, I daresay it simply could have been a essay. That is academic knowledge, not experiential. Instead he chose to craft the experience of Parsifal, which is a very peculiar choice if his goal is to stabilize the ego, because Parsifal seems specifically designed to *destabilize* the ego: The way he built Bayreuth in a simple stadium-style to take the audience out of the auditorium, out of daily life itself, and immerse them into the scene. The way the music rises unseen from the depths and engulfs the listener. The way Parsifal is paced to distort and cause us to lose our sense of time. The result is ego-death. When it ends, and the lights come back on, and we a thrust back into our bodies, and we are shaken. We cannot put words to what we have just experienced, to even attempt to describe it in words would bring it diminishment. These indicate the intentions and effects of a mystic experience, and it is my full belief that triggering such an otherworldly experience in the audience was Wagner's primary intention. Certainly he produced a work which has caused many to change the trajectory of their lives. His purpose was not to distill religion into psychology, but a demonstration in the power of the spiritual, and how the mantle in expressing its fundamental truths can be passed from organized religion to art.
I have to say that I'm loving this conversation! I appreciate your description of the effect Parsifal has on you; I can identify with it. When I first heard the complete opera - I think I was about 16, it was a radio broadcast of the 1951 Bayreuth recording, the only one then available - I was left in a sort of trance state from which I only gradually returned to everyday reality. When I subsequently acquired the 1962 Bayreuth recording I couldn't get enough of it, much as you report being addicted to Tristan. I found the work both exalting and disturbing, but it's the latter effect that most intrigues me. The beautiful spirituality of the work's "religious" music, and the extraordinary blending of ecstasy and pain that's virtually unique to this work, were always easy for me to identify with (my churchy upbringing probably had much to do with it), but the strange, chromatic, insinuating music with which Kundry seduces Parsifal - music subtler and stranger than anything in Tristan - felt somehow threatening, even corrupting, to me as a young person. As I grew older, I came to understand that this sense of existential threat is just what Parsifal feels as Kundry draws him into a dangerous vortex of helplessness, a dark place that psychoanalysis would describe as an infantile state in which sexual desire merges with a return to the mother's breast, and a place where mature manhood is impossible to achieve. As a young person poised precariously on that fence that separates boyhood from manhood, I think I experienced in Wagner's uncanny music something of what Parsifal himself experiences, but I had then no way to conceptualize those very disturbing feelings.

I know that Wagner was writing in the era before Freud and Jung, and that he didn't use their vocabulary or think in precisely their terms. I'm not trying to depict him as a psychoanalyst in any precise sense. But just as the concepts they developed are attempts to describe the dynamic processes of man's subjective life, so the concepts of religion represent earlier attempts to do the same thing. Jung, less hostile to religion than Freud, tried to represent the experience of transformation and spiritual maturation in psychological terms, and when I look at Wagner, an avowed atheist, I see him doing much the same thing, but in the concrete, sensuous form of musical drama rather than explanatory prose. He couldn't have had what you call a "secular, psychological goal about explaining the healthy integration of the ego," but he most certainly had a secular artistic goal of presenting the transformation of a naive, self-centered boy into a mature, responsible man. If I describe the process by which Parsifal attains that maturity in Jungian terms, it's because I find them useful, but not necessarily exclusive of other ways of conceptualizing what the opera is telling us. I don't intend to dismiss the Christian and Buddhist elements in the opera, but I don't think that in drawing from these traditions Wagner was shedding his modernity and adopting wholesale the metaphysical views of ancient religions. At a fundamental level I don't think Parsifal is any more - or less - "religious" a work than the Ring. It merely uses a different mythical vocabulary, one drawn from Christian and Buddhist legend, to convey what Wagner considered truths about human existence. That he may never have entirely settled in his own mind what those truths were probably served only to make Parsifal more ambiguous, suggestive and fascinating.

As a modern man and a nonbeliever in gods and devils, heavens and hells, I find religion interesting, I've done a fair amount of reading in it, and I've sought to apply to my own life ideas from religious traditions, Buddhism in particular. But, like Feuerbach and Wagner, I see religious metaphysics and cosmologies as projections of man's inner life. When Gurnemanz sings about creation giving thanks for having been redeemed at last, I don't take any part of that literally. The "creation" or universe about which Wagner writes is not the universe in which we live - that unfathomable infinity of burning suns and colliding atoms - but rather the universe that lives within us. Wagner's mythical worlds, whatever their implications for human life in the social and natural realms, are above all embodiments of the internal drama played out by the forces that make up the human personality. This is increasingly the case as his work matures, and Parsifal epitomizes the genre of mythic psychodrama unique to him, with its strange characters who make no sense as individual people but profound sense as interdependent elements of a single, evolving human consciousness.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top