What the movie was actually about(The truth about Prometheus)

I am only going to write in short burst, as wadding through a massive paragraph with A.D.D. is rather fun, so here goes only a brief one tonight and more tomorrow (nice talking with you @The Truth). Well see things that other may or may not see or especially feel emotionally. We are a whole, yet we are also individuals. With that said, breaking down the subtle meanings and motives behind any work is at best an individual interpretation based on that person's own experiences (we all understand that, yes), but in order to impress those ideas to others and have them actually consider those views... now that is an ideal. This movie I knew would be a monster, not because it was produced by Ridley Scott, but because it would be a vague, thought-provoking exercise of man's inner most desire... and that is to finally meet his/her maker. This journey, like all journeys are an individualistic and extremely person. Here is an example, I was once trying to explain what it felt like the first time I was on my submarine and we had a battle stations drill... because our boat held ICBMs in it's belly, every drill is a reality... I was afraid, terrified at moments thinking what would or could happen at that moment. I attempted to explain that to my brother, but I knew I failed. Not because he did not understand it, but because I could not verbally convey those emotions I felt. This was simply a primer for understanding the limitations of how I feel about the movie and the underlying meanings and symbolism it contains. Ultimately, I wish to understand everyone's emotions about the topic, and will seek to understand how they come to these ideas. Paul [img]http://i1157.photobucket.com/albums/p582/mr_lincolnlog/KnowYourXenoLarge.jpg[/img]

So basically you are saying that this is one of those movies that is open to interpretation? I like that, I kinda agree with you(If thats what you are trying to say).

I find any art form of sufficient talent worthy of semiotic analysis. [quote]It's a movie, not a philosophical treatise on the collective existential crisis of humanity.[/quote] That would be a subjective matter of opinion, dogma being just as much a flawed belief system as blind faith, which seems exactly analogous to pitting Science against Religion, or any other dialectical argument one could think of. I’m a little perplexed as to why the search for meaning need be threatening, or necessitate dogmatism even if it's the dogmatism of stoical nihilism. Philosophy seems a wonderful way of exploring these themes, of course it’s just a movie, was anyone suggesting it wasn’t? I agree utterly that this movie appears to be a thickly woven, heuristic tapestry. The movie also references a great deal of symbolism, symbols are used to indicate meaning, although not necessarily to be revelatory. Art forms function on multiple levels of comprehension, in fact one could lodge a fair argument for such semiotic to be the basis of a definition of art in general. Ambiguity offers a space in which to appreciate many differing aspects of interpretation. Even if the director of a film intends only one such meaning to be ’THE’ correct one, or ’THE TRUTH’ - The very notion of truth as Physicists are rapidly discovering brings into question an object subject dichotomy. That is to say that even after relativity and quantum mechanics, ‘truth' seems to be becoming evidently subjective even in the hard sciences, although most working physicists would probably deny such a glaring heresy, as such admissions are not good for the church of science, by which I mean the academic status quo. After all science outwardly espouses the importance of disproving ones own theories whilst committing the glaring error of dismissing that which has been refused or declined peer reviewal, perhaps as sometimes happens because of political dogma or even because the theorem in question commits the ‘sin' of threatening the scientific paradigm, the status quo. From at least one perspective science can be revealed as a belief system. The whole idea of confirmation bias seems to be incredibly ironic, after all who decides what is and isn’t a confirmation bias in an Art Form, or a world where one’s opinion is subjective, this might at first look like a solipsistic argument, but I feel that would be simplifying matters to avoid complexity, in other words I don’t see Art an as / or interpretation. To my mind any appreciable art form should primarily be fun, both for the creator and appreciator and for some people that might mean semiotics whilst for others perhaps it means stoicism, (a school of Hellenistic philosophy ironically enough). I don’t feel anyone has the copy write on absolute truth quite probably because the very notion would be erroneous. There are in fact very few axioms and ‘reality' doesn't appear to be one of them. Or to quote Robert Anton Wilson- “Reality seems to me to be what you can get away with†Or as the famous Zen koan asks "who is the master who makes the grass green?" Having said that, who the hell likes commercial hype? Perhaps it’s a fact of a society based on conformation bias, after all, when the global monetary systems threaten to rock the boat, a very [u]real[/u] form of existential quandary abounds. Historically this is often reflected intentionally or unconsciously through art and artistic movements. (see 1930’s depression era art) As for finding meaning, as the video in this post suggests it would seem that doing so can always be open to further interpretation, this might be the reason one doesn’t feel the need to stop developing a theorem when it appears to function, new interpretations and challenges can always be lodged, and why not when such fun can be had in doing so? As for the dialectic of Guile V’s Gullibility this seems comparable with empiricism V's phenominalisem in that both are dialect simplifications of experiential reality that appears to be far less exclusive and yet not entirely holistic, nor some verity of mediocre compromise. I can see nothing to lose from an exploration of meaning, after all to remain inert to the world we live in would be somewhat sociopathic, just like David. The error comes when one persistently [u]acts[/u] on apparently erroneously held beliefs or from blind faith, in fact even acting on a belief needn't be problematical if one doesn't hold one's beliefs to be immutably true, though there seems to be nothing to say what will be erroneous or not, not even societal sanction, except perhaps for ones personal integrity of comprehension. What is true might turn out to be false and what is false might then later turn out to be true, that is because truth and fallacy are themselves dialectic argument. (please see general semantics) Hence to that extent all human beings are fallible, ironically enough what could be wrong with that. *laughs*

^ I don´t think Ridley inteded to give a straight meaning to this film. Like several people have suggested this is the kind of movie that makes you decide what you want to believe. It only gives you certain clues but never really points to a sole direction. About the symbolism, I also agree with you. The symbolism wasn´t placed there to be "revelatory" nor to preach Christianity. Now that I think of it, idk why was it placed there in the first place but to deny the existence of said symbolism is just wrong. It´s clear as water, it is not coincidence.