Even the homeless have an economic system on the streets within a defined collective social stratification. All money enables is social exchange, but the characteristics of any complex social structure is dependent on a number of factors that all ultimately lead to very similar hierarchical and observed inequalities; power.

Whether one is extremely wealthy or the extremely poor is irrelevant save for how one is enabled with the capacity to display power in order to achieve a particular status within this system. Rituals and secrecy are one such mean; everyone wants to feel special, everyone wants to feel pleasure, everyone wants feel like they are a part of something greater than themselves, and what better way than developing a secret society. It is a business.

There is no such thing as a classless society. There is also no such thing as common sense amongst the masses.

I have put this into the General Philosophy section because it is connected to several topics such as art, politics or religion. So in Kubrick's Eyes wide shut we can see that members of the elite basically do what they want. They get along with murder, drugs, prostitution and they rule everything. They form a social class which means what they do they do it systematically. On top of that they occasionally oranize occult rituals which makes that even scarier in some sense (how rational or moral could they be?).

The masked ritual scene with the naked chicks is full of masonic and religious (Christian) symbolism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhV-4658syE
I think one of the main messages of the movie is how religious and elite groups manipulate and rule society in a very destructive way.

The strangest part is that three days after Kubrick gave the movie to Warner Brothers he died of a heart attack.

Do you think that we are living in this distopian future or just Kubrick was a brilliant director with the most brilliant real world ending for his movie (but all the symbols are what they are: symbols and images of imagination)? — Meta

Meta, I love this film! I've only seen it once but I think it's an underrated masterpiece, one of Kubrick's best out of an incredibly filmography.

I think the dystopian society we are living with is quite different than the one Kubrick suggests. In Kubrick, the cult is a secret of the elites. But in the Trumpian age, Trump and his fellow aspiring oligarchs have been emboldened to pretty much flout the rule of laws out in the open. In many ways, I think the American moral-political landscape now is far more dangerous than even the one suggested by Kubrick. Might you agree?

I agree with you in what you said. I don't mind if there are classes of society. But the point of the movie is that the highest class can get people killed and get away with it. That there are laws for people and there is the elite class and the members of this class ignore these laws or human rights. If that is true the whole concept of the government or society is a lie because those are not built on human rights.

I don't really know what is going on in the political scene of the US. I am not into politics very much to be honest. I don't know if there are any (suspected) political homicides in the US. If the highest class of US society can get away with murder then I will accept your claim. Until that I'm just hoping that Kubrick was just fantasizing.

I remember one case where a rich kid run over (I think) a mother and her baby in his jeep killing them both and his lawyers saved his ass.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/12/the-affluenza-defense-judge-rules-rich-kids-rich-kid-ness-makes-him-not-liable-for-deadly-drunk-driving-accident/

This is how the elite controls everything immorally and keeps eyes of people "wide shut".
But that case is still not as wrong as the one in Kubrick's film.

edit: Back to the run down case. My opinion is that postmodern applied moral philosophy is a defense line for these bastards. Because if the parents of that kid let the kid become a complete psychotic animal then they are indeed responsible for what happened and they do not form any right to manage their wealth.

I agree with you in what you said. I don't mind if there are classes of society. But the point of the movie is that the highest class can get people killed and get away with it. That there are laws for people and there is the elite class and the members of this class ignore these laws or human rights. If that is true the whole concept of the government or society is a lie because those are not built on human rights. — Meta

Hence the secrecy, the latter of which supplants the power that enables such activities while enjoying exemption from punishment; what better way to display power when you have impunity? You give a good man the Ring of Gyges and we'll see just how much of good a man he is.

Deception, lying, they are acts motivated by this incentive for power and fed by the vicious only to morons since everything that we are is rooted in beliefs. It is socially variable and visible at individual or state level (so, a man may lie to his girlfriend and friends because he is motivated by the need to control and manipulate as much as the elite would one another under the stratagem for power.) It is merely a trait.

They do not actually rule society, but they do influence decisions that impact social inequality and often at the expense of the most vulnerable in society. But, for some, such social inequality can - as Foucault would agree - enable productivity or motivate a more functional operation of society. How do you think Human Rights came to existence? Power is actually vested in the people, but if we are unable to pinpoint these activities, how are we able to fight it?

Conspiracy theories were big back then, especially ones tied to together with the occult, sex, religion. (I especially like Roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate"). The following video takes the view that the movie is more about the viewer's perspective, it also has a good overall summary of the movie.

Exactly. The op assumes that the events depicted in the movie (e.g. the orgy scene) are depicted as real, but I don't think this is obvious. For instance, Kubrick hints that the perspective from which we see the movie---Bill's perspective---is heavily distorted---notice how basically everyone acts towards him as if they were in love/flirting---and, well, the title of the movie is Eyes Wide Shut, which indicates both a more dreamy interpretation and also to the fact that the main characters is shutting his eyes towards things (such as his wife's desires). So I don't think the movie is much about a dystopic elite, so much as about Bill's inner conflicts.

Yes, I think the end of the film brings home the point that dream like experience they just went through may have been more fantasy than reality, it made them question reality and their fantasies which is what conspiracy does, they wake up at the end breaking the trance "We're awake now".

My claim is independent if these events "really" happened in the fictional universe. My claim is that Kubrick indirectly (through fictional events) tells us how members of the elite class do their business. He never was a direct guy was he? And the fact that he died a couple of days after finishing the movie makes this message even more powerful (imo).

I don't think the two issues are separate. For one may hold that Kubrick is not depicting (directly or indirectly) how members of the elite class conduct their business, but rather how Bill fantasizes that members of the elite class conduct their business. So the movie would not involve the elite's business in any way, but rather involve Bill's fantasies about the elite; which would, in my view, make the movie less about social critique (unless indirectly from the depiction of Bill himself) than about the psychology of Bill and his relationship to Alice('s desire).

The masked ritual scene with the naked chicks is full of masonic and religious (Christian) symbolism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhV-4658syE — Meta

I found this ritual scene a little boring, but I don't like sitting through these kinds of rituals even in a christian setting. Real Satanism has nothing to do with these kinds of fancy rituals, just like real faith has nothing to do with various rituals. Most Satanists will tell you that Satan is only a mascot representing the idea of rebellion and that's a pretty accurate interpretation.

The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. When talking about making a choice between two masters, Jesus did not talk about God and Satan. He said God is one master and mammon (money and the things money can buy) is the other, and that we cannot work for both without cheating on one or the other. The Revelation talks about a "mark" being used to economically control people. Only people who take the "mark" may buy and sell and it suggests that this mark will be mandatory for everyone, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, but only compulsory if you want to continue being part of the economic system. If you do not take the mark, no more job, no more bills, no more food, clothing, or shelter.

This shows that the problem isn't "the elite" but rather greed. It's just that the elite are better at being greedy than the poor. In the end satan does not care about things like money, sex, or rituals, but he does care that WE care about those things, and he will use those weaknesses against us. What he really wants is to turn people away from God, by any means necessary.

Drawing 666 and pentagrams on the wall, wearing black robes, and walking around with candles isn't satanism; forcing people to pay us for our love is.

Maybe you are right but I don't think that Kubrick would make a movie without deep social critique. I see your point though.

Drawing 666 and pentagrams on the wall, wearing black robes, and walking around with candles isn't satanism; forcing people to pay us for our love is. — John Days

Notwithstanding your biblical references, I can see how evil and hatred as represented by the 'devil' in these masonic rituals is ultimately just an absence of love or moral consciousness. Sexual deviance and debauchery are examples of power and pleasure that an absence of love would enable, thus making it immoral. So, if we say that an absence of love is evil, money is not the root of all evil but rather the enabling factor that provides evil or in this instance the elite class the capacity to perform, since it is clear that whether you are wealthy or not has no bearing on being evil. Someone who lies and manipulates in order to win the trust of another is just as guilty as someone who has the monetary means to pay.

Meta, I love this film! I've only seen it once but I think it's an underrated masterpiece, one of Kubrick's best out of an incredibly filmography. — Brian

I rented the movie just to see what the big doodle was about it.

Cinematography? There are a lot of really good looking people in this movie.

Good looking people at the Metzger's party dancing.
Good looking hooker totally naked sleeping off an OD. Full frontal nudity.
Good looking, young and famous actress, with a flawless body, pert tits, slim thighs, completely buck naked on screen. Nude from front, behind, sideways, up and down.
Good looking and famous actor (male) buck naked.
Lots of good looking naked women in masks.
A very good looking woman becoming crazy over the good looks of a good looking man.
A good looking wife dancing with a good looking foreigner looking good.

At this point in the movie I got so bored with the plot (non-existent almost) and with the character development (hero goes from one naked woman to another --- what's the big deal?) that I turned off the set.

The cinematography? Like my foot. It's the bucks Kubrick spent on getting really famous people on his screen to take off all their clothes. This is not cinematography. This is actually just a bit more exciting than seventies soft porn.

Pretentious pornography, that's what this movie was. However, it was done in good taste, the bodies were all just washed clean and no smut. I would recommend it to any fifteen-year-old to fuel his pipe dreams.

I don't think that Kubrick would make a movie without deep social critique. I see your point though. — Meta

You're right. I think there was very much indeed deep social meaning in this movie. Kubrick proved with emphasis, and without leaving any doubt, that it does not matter how much a North American or Hollywood actress values her artistic integrity, and it does not matter how much money she has already earned, if you throw at her a large enough amount of money, she will take off her clothes for each and every male member of the world who pays his twelve dollar fifty cents for the movie ticket. (That was the current going price at the time of first showing the movie.)

This was a social experiment which worked.

Notwithstanding your biblical references, — TimeLine

Yeah, I was hoping that wouldn't be an issue. Jesus said A LOT about greed, which isn't a religious problem. All humans on the planet struggle with greed. Jesus also gave solutions to the problem of greed. It is in the context of problem and solution that I referenced some Biblical teachings. For example, Jesus said that the answer to greed is for people to start sharing with one another. That's not a religious position; it's a solution which works in real life.

So, if we say that an absence of love is evil, money is not the root of all evil but rather the enabling factor — TimeLine

Well, if you look carefully, neither I nor the Bible said that money is the root of all evil. The love of money (or greed) is the root of all evil. Defining what "love of money" means in practical terms can get a little tricky, because it deals with motivations, but generally speaking, when someone believes they will die if they do not charge a fee for their love, it's almost certain they have a problem with money-loving.

since it is clear that whether you are wealthy or not has no bearing on being evil. — TimeLine

In a world with finite resources, it certainly DOES have a bearing on whether one is evil or not depending on how much of those resources he draws to himself. There will always be some kind of trade-off when it comes to finite wealth. The more we take for ourselves, the less there will be for others.

People screwing around in black robes and performing titillating rituals is a smoke screen. Real evil is believing we are more important than others just because we have more ability than they in taking what is available.

Jesus said A LOT about greed, which isn't a religious problem. All humans on the planet struggle with greed. Jesus also gave solutions to the problem of greed. It is in the context of problem and solution that I referenced some Biblical teachings. For example, Jesus said that the answer to greed is for people to start sharing with one another. That's not a religious position; it's a solution which works in real life. — John Days

What separates a lay problem (not religious) from a religious problem, when the bible directly and explicitly deals with it, including Jesus in the debate or discussion? It is a worldly problem, all right, but it is also a religious problem. Anything that the bible says is religious, as the words in it were inspired by god, and by definition religion has to do with god, his nature, and man's relationship to god.

So... while you correctly identified the problem of greed as a real life, layman's type of problem, you can't say that it is not a religious problem or consideration at the same time and in the same respect. Because it very much is.

Yeah, I was hoping that wouldn't be an issue. — John Days

I know plenty of religious and irreligious people who speak openly to me about their beliefs and I have no qualms with what anyone would want to say to me. Just accept that I believe we are people trying to figure out the meaning of a story. Ultimately, I agree when you say that's not a religious position; it's a solution which works in real life because that is what everything is.

When someone believes they will die if they do not charge a fee for their love, it's almost certain they have a problem with money-loving. — John Days

Que?

In a world with finite resources, it certainly DOES have a bearing on whether one is evil or not depending on how much of those resources he draws to himself. — John Days

No, it doesn't. And using capital letters won't make it so.

Real evil is believing we are more important than others just because we have more ability than they in taking what is available. — John Days

Just believing we are more important than others. And the desire to have more is to attain the power to reinforce this belief.

The point is that power is not something one can attain through money, it is just a means. The desire for power is subjective, a trait, a belief in ones own superiority. If a person believes he is morally superior, and so when guilty of a wrongdoing attempts to deceitfully fabricate lies to people around him and garner enough support to make himself believe that he is not guilty, that does not require money. That is just lies and manipulation to ensure he continues to feel morally superior.

I have no qualms with what anyone would want to say to me. — TimeLine

That doesn't sound realistic at all.

Just accept that I believe we are people trying to figure out the meaning of a story. — TimeLine

Sorry, but I don't just believe people because they ask me to.

Ultimately, I agree when you say that's not a religious position; it's a solution which works in real life because that is what everything is. — TimeLine

Nah, there's lots of fantastical or delusion ideals which don't actually work in real life. Pretending that forcing payment from others for our help is a healthy way of life does not make sense, even if most of the world has been conned into believing it does.

Que? — TimeLine

It's hard to believe that you are genuinely confused by my comments. Money does not make the sun shine or the rain fall. Money does not create the soil or nutrients within the soil which makes plants grow. Money does not create animal life or keep animal life going. Money does not utilize the resources of the earth to make life better for all humans. Money only acts as a means of motivation for why people work, and they've been conned into thinking it's a right motivation. It is not. Money has become a means of measuring human worth, which is why we have the phrase, "earn a living" and why artists or passionate creators will talk of prostituting themselves even though it has nothing to do with physical meshing of genitalia. . If one is not working for money, then they have not earned the right to live. It's why volunteering is a hobby for "bleeding hearts" rather than a beneficial way of life for all humanity.

No, it doesn't. And using capital letters won't make it so. — TimeLine

Are you suggesting the world's resources are not finite?

The point is that power is not something one can attain through money, — TimeLine

It's like you have no idea what it's like to live on Earth.

money, it is just a means. — TimeLine

Completely contradicts your previous statement about how money doesn't buy power.

If a person believes he is morally superior, and so when guilty of a wrongdoing attempts to deceitfully fabricate lies to people around him and garner enough support to make himself believe that he is not guilty, that does not require money. — TimeLine

I guess corruption, bribery, and extortion are synonymous with unicorns in the land where you live?

What separates a lay problem (not religious) from a religious problem, — szardosszemagad

Usually it's personal bias or social conditioning of some kind. Why would any rational person have a problem with, "Judge yourself first so that you will be able to fairly judge others"? Jesus said it, and yet people still complain as though he was some kind of fraud.

Anything that the bible says is religious, — szardosszemagad

Nah, that's just social conditioning. Greed, fear, and pride are problems all humans deal with.

So... while you correctly identified the problem of greed as a real life, layman's type of problem, you can't say that it is not a religious problem — szardosszemagad

Sure I can. It's not a religious problem at all. It's a human problem. Hypocrites are the ones who want to say these are religious problems, because, if they themselves are not "religious", it's easy to think, "I am not religious, so I am not a bad person like you are".

Anything that the bible says is religious,
— szardosszemagad

Nah, that's just social conditioning. Greed, fear, and pride are problems all humans deal with. — John Days

Well, you are right, everything in the bible is social conditioning if you don't believe it is the word of god. But if you believe that the bible is the word of god, then whatever is in it, is gospel. God's own thoughts and teachings for mankind. And you can't get any more relgious about a topic than listening to god's take on it.

So... while you correctly identified the problem of greed as a real life, layman's type of problem, you can't say that it is not a religious problem
— szardosszemagad

Sure I can. — John Days

Yes, you can do whatever you desire. If you like, you can denounce the rules of logic. Do that. It does not mean that the logic is wrong -- it means that you either don't understand it, or else you have a vested interest in maintaining a point, or else you just said something sometime that people hold you to, and you are trying to save face.

You can't say it's a religious problem if you deny the validity of religion. If you accept that religious views are valid, and furthermore, you are a Christian, then you can't say that a human problem that the bible deals with is not also a topic of religion.

Hypocrites are the ones who want to say these are religious problems, because, if they themselves are not "religious", it's easy to think, "I am not religious, so I am not a bad person like you are". — John Days

You put the horse before the cart. Or the other way around. A non-religious person will treat greed as a human problem, and only as a human problem. A non-religious atheist is not concerned with what the bible says.

Your logic to deny the religious aspect of something that is both a human aspect and a religious aspect is not working.

A non-religious atheist is not concerned with what the bible says. — szardosszemagad

Which is the point; if there are good teachings in the Bible about greed and how to deal with greed, why should an atheist disregard them because they can be found in the bible? That is irrational.

Problem is that preachers of the Bible are among the most greedy people on Earth.

if there are good teachings in the Bible about greed and how to deal with greed, why should an atheist disregard them because they can be found in the bible? That is irrational. — John Days

why he should disregard the bible's teaching despite the teachings being useful? Not because the atheist is irrational. But because he never reads the bible.

A theist or atheist who never read "Richard III" by Shakespeare, or more to the point, never read the Gilgamesh story in original Babylonian, can't be faulted for irrationality for not using the useful parts of these works. Similarly, an atheist who never read the bible, will not use the bible's teaching but not out of irrationality.

The good readings in the bible and the bad readings in the bible are holy scriptures for those who are religious. To them it's the truth, because they believe the bible's words were inspired by god. To the atheist, they are human problems written badly and well. You still haven't got the concept that the bible is in its entirety a holy scripture. If you are religious, then the human problems dealt in the bible are religious problems. If you are secular, they are human problems.

An atheist disregards the bible becasue the good, humanly good, teachings in it can be found elsewehre, in more accessible forms. It is not that the atheist disregard the bible in opposition to what the bible says when it says true things, i.e. when the bible says things that are acceptible for truth by the atheist; he disregards the bible as a religious authority, because he does not believe in god. I ought to have been more clear on this. He also disregards the bible's authority on questionable issues, because more often than not, they contradict repeatable, reality, and contradict foreseeable and foreseen events.

Problem is that preachers of the Bible are among the most greedy people on Earth. — Meta

They can be, but pretending they have a special problem which we do not, just because they're religious about their greed is probably worse.

A theist or atheist who never read "Richard III" by Shakespeare, or more to the point, never read the Gilgamesh story in original Babylonian, can't be faulted for irrationality for not using the useful parts of these works. — szardosszemagad

Sure they can, if they disregard those useful parts because they dislike Shakespeare or the ancient Babylonians. When Jesus says, "If you give to the poor, do so secretly so that you don't fall for the temptation to only help for the sake of making yourself look better in the eyes of those who see you give", it would be foolish for an atheist to ignore it just because it can be found in the Bible, just like it'd be foolish of a Christian to ignore that same teaching if it can be found in Hindu or Buddhist texts.

When people judge the quality of a teaching based on where the teaching is found, then they have become religious about being anti-religious.

Disclaimer - I'm rather inebriated at the moment, but this essay is a pretty fantastic analysis of Eyes Wide Shut. Worth reading. Penny for your thoughts, etc.

Some very interesting interpretations thus far. I look forward to revisiting this thread when I come back down to earth.

READ my lips: if they don't read the bible in the first place, they don't know what's in it; and they can get the same information form other sources.

It is a fallacy to think or to opine that that bible contains human lessons that are not found elsewhere.

When people judge the quality of a teaching based on where the teaching is found, then they have become religious about being anti-religious. — John Days

They don't judge the teaching. They just don't bother reading it, because it is packaged with a whole bunch of what the atheists consider nonsense. They get the useful info other places.

They don't judge the quality of teaching in the bible. They just ignore it altogether, avoid reading it. You can't judge something for content you haven't read. They don't judge the bible for content quality of human concerns; they just have other publications that describe the situation which is in the bible as well, but don't have the unnecessary text of devotional noise around the teachings.

Anyway, the original point was that Satanism, in the sense of rituals isn't really the problem. However, if the motivation for playing around with the rituals is to promote the concept of rebellion, then that is a problem, especially if it's meant to be rebellion against the concept of the creator/God who wants us to love one another (which is why they use Satan, the first rebel, as the theme for the ritual).

Rebellion is often dressed-up as independence to justify selfishness, "I'm not being greedy. I'm standing up for myself against a God who wants to deny my right to take as much as I want". They don't necessarily need to believe in a literal Satan or a God for the results to be the same and they may not even be consciously aware that they're attempting to justify their greed as some kind of righteous standing-up for one's self. This kind of delusion definitely fits the concept of eyes being wide shut.

That doesn't sound realistic at all. — John Days

Oh, sorry, did I give you the impression that your opinion mattered? My bad.

Nah, there's lots of fantastical or delusion ideals which don't actually work in real life. — John Days

That is why I said that it is all a story. It works for the delusional. How's things going in your real life by the way?

You say:

It's like you have no idea what it's like to live on Earth. — John Days

And then:

...why artists or passionate creators will talk of prostituting themselves even though it has nothing to do with physical meshing of genitalia. — John Days

I must be on Saturn.

Are you suggesting the world's resources are not finite? — John Days

No, I am suggesting that you cannot assume an answer must be true because it contains capitalised words. I am also suggesting that evil is subjective, an absence of subjective value judgements, and money or resources explains this objectively. It is the motivational structure that enables the force for the mechanics of evil to act; the Ring of Gyges is clarity enough about how access to empowering resources can determine the genuine motivational structure of a person.

Completely contradicts your previous statement about how money doesn't buy power. — John Days

No, all it does is show your inability to capish.