You should look up what Lily and Lana Wachowski have said about The Matrix. It is much more about their own gender transitions than anything else. Of course, we each take out of it depending on how we perceive.
The Matrix didn’t become a myth because of a post-hoc gender narrative. It became a myth because it shattered perception. It gave language to the machinery of control, and it did so in a way that transcended biography, identity, or any single interpretation.
Recasting The Matrix as “really about their own gender transitions” is like saying Star Wars is about George Lucas’ divorce. Maybe. But that’s not why it changed people. The myth outgrew its maker.
That’s what real myth does: it breaks free. It becomes a weapon in the minds of the audience.
You’ve just proven my point that perception not fact is everything outside of truth. And George Lucas’ Star Wars was based on Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With A Thousand Faces, which was based on mythology.
You won again. G-OODA for you! Your entire life in everything you do is about winning and I say that as a clairvoyant. And I think you mean what this site is to you. How you perceive your interactions with Substack or are you speaking for everyone?
The problem with Contra Frame is you’re so busy looking for patterns that aren’t there, you project your own perceptions onto them. But that’s what the ego does. That’s human nature.
No, I ended my statement by saying: “Of course, we each take out of it depending on how we perceive.” Every artist has their motivation and their audience has their perception. It’s both. It’s not an escape hatch.
And if I’m correct, you’re saying that the writers meaning one thing (fact) and the audience seeing (perceiving) another cannot coexist?
You led with: “It is much more about their gender transitions than anything else.” That is a hierarchical claim: author intent elevated as the primary meaning.
Your follow-up line—“we each take out of it depending on how we perceive”—functions as rhetorical insulation, not balance. It appeared only after the primary frame (“It is much more about their gender transitions than anything else.” ) was established.
You're right that artists have intentions and audiences perceive. And when you open with a definitive claim, then retreat to “both,” that’s not coexistence, it’s narrative hedging.
Frames don’t collapse because perception and intent can’t coexist. They collapse when someone asserts authority up front, then slips into ambiguity to avoid owning the frame they opened with.
It is not science fiction, but science fact.
Facts transcend time, memes, and campaigns.
It is a story of reality told as an allegory.
The visuals distract from the meaning.
However, the meaning holds true.
The one of the essential truths of the modern world.
Language is symbolic, not real.
So language can be used to symbolize whatever we want.
What is real is the effects of language.
Therefore, as you continue to address, the blue pill of disinformation is merely symbolic of the emptying of meaning from language.
And a great prompt to read “Simulacra.”
As Spoon Boy might put it:
“It’s not the pattern that bends—it’s your ability to perceive it.”
You should look up what Lily and Lana Wachowski have said about The Matrix. It is much more about their own gender transitions than anything else. Of course, we each take out of it depending on how we perceive.
The Matrix didn’t become a myth because of a post-hoc gender narrative. It became a myth because it shattered perception. It gave language to the machinery of control, and it did so in a way that transcended biography, identity, or any single interpretation.
Recasting The Matrix as “really about their own gender transitions” is like saying Star Wars is about George Lucas’ divorce. Maybe. But that’s not why it changed people. The myth outgrew its maker.
That’s what real myth does: it breaks free. It becomes a weapon in the minds of the audience.
You’ve just proven my point that perception not fact is everything outside of truth. And George Lucas’ Star Wars was based on Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With A Thousand Faces, which was based on mythology.
You said:
“It is much more about their own gender transitions than anything else.”
That was your claim: author intent as the defining truth of the film.
Now you’re backpedaling to your preloaded escape hatch:
“Of course, we each take out of it depending on how we perceive” and
“perception not fact is everything outside of truth.”
That’s not clarity. That’s retreat. You assert a fact, then hide in perception.
That move doesn't hold the frame. It dodges it.
You win! Congratulations!
This site is not about winning. It’s about observing how meaning gets shaped, asserted, challenged, and revised, often in the span of a few exchanges.
That’s the point of CONTRA FRAME: to surface the patterns most people miss.
I appreciate the engagement.
You won again. G-OODA for you! Your entire life in everything you do is about winning and I say that as a clairvoyant. And I think you mean what this site is to you. How you perceive your interactions with Substack or are you speaking for everyone?
The problem with Contra Frame is you’re so busy looking for patterns that aren’t there, you project your own perceptions onto them. But that’s what the ego does. That’s human nature.
When clarity threatens ego, projection dresses up as insight. That’s not clairvoyance. That’s retreat.
No, I ended my statement by saying: “Of course, we each take out of it depending on how we perceive.” Every artist has their motivation and their audience has their perception. It’s both. It’s not an escape hatch.
And if I’m correct, you’re saying that the writers meaning one thing (fact) and the audience seeing (perceiving) another cannot coexist?
You led with: “It is much more about their gender transitions than anything else.” That is a hierarchical claim: author intent elevated as the primary meaning.
Your follow-up line—“we each take out of it depending on how we perceive”—functions as rhetorical insulation, not balance. It appeared only after the primary frame (“It is much more about their gender transitions than anything else.” ) was established.
You're right that artists have intentions and audiences perceive. And when you open with a definitive claim, then retreat to “both,” that’s not coexistence, it’s narrative hedging.
Frames don’t collapse because perception and intent can’t coexist. They collapse when someone asserts authority up front, then slips into ambiguity to avoid owning the frame they opened with.