The “Adept” understands that through familiarity and correct interpretation of classical mythology, the nature of the “god of illumination” can be more clearly perceived. Stanley Kubrick understood this and considered mythology the knowledge of highest rank.
An example of “correct interpretative insight” can be found in the mythological account of Apollo at Delphi.
The serpent Python guarded the Omphalos of Delphi, the center of the earth. Python is related to the Greek, pythein, meaning, “to rot.” The Proto-Indo-European root, dhubhon, from dheub, means “hollow, deep, bottom or depths.” Python was killed by the Greek god Apollo, who became the new guard of the Oracle.
Apollo represents the future Nachash. God cursed the Light Bringer as punishment for his interaction with Eve in the garden. He was “made to eat dust.” The serpent-dragon Python represents this manifestation. By killing Python, the shining god-man (Apollo) symbolically predicts the Nachash’s intended victory over God’s curse, usurping the place of power and regaining his majesty. The Golden Legend of Saint George killing the dragon is a similar analogy.
An initiate would explain the Masonic adage, “slaying one’s dragon” as, “the achievement of better self control and the practice of moderation in all things; all things toward gaining fraternal virtue.”
But, the lower-level Mason, according to Albert Pike,
“… is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry. ”
The state of “being misled by false interpretations” is the true meaning of what high level Mason’s refer to as, the “Blue Lodge.”
The true, but hidden meaning of “slaying one’s dragon” describes an illuminated epiphany; it is that time when the initiate realizes that the Nachash is man’s only hope, and that the God of the bible is his enemy.
The Adept can be found in the “Red Lodge.”
Kubrick typically weaves illuminated “sub-images” into his movies. These are usually too subtle for the average (vulgar) observer to discern, but a member of the Red Lodge, whose “eyes have been opened” will see. The illuminated adept’s view is reversed from that of the Christian understanding, and they see God as selfish, petty and cruel. To them, it is the self sacrificing, valiant and loving “Light Bringer” that seeks to rescue man, giving him all knowledge – everything that God so jealously denies him.
David represents two major illumined “sub-images.”
Just as Dr. Hobby created mecha beings who existed passively in the service of mankind, experiencing neither fear nor desire, God placed his human creation in the Garden as ignorant “prisoner slaves.” David had been given the quintessential human ability to love, along with the potential emotions that accompany love; desire, grief, happiness and despair. He had been given a form of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil but simultaneously handicapped by his god, since he was designed to forever appear, behave and think as a child. David was never intended to fully comprehend or find any resolution to his plight, but only given a false “savior” – in the form of the Blue Fairy. (Discussed in Part III.)
In addition to the “David as man banished from Eden, struggling against his uncaring god” sub-image, David represents the quintessential, “knowledge breathed” answer to the illuminated man’s quest for godhood via the promise whispered by the serpent. (Gen 3: 4-5) As the first of his kind to know what it was to love, he was the first in a line whose descendants would be “as gods.”
Kubrick’s movies can be watched multiple times, and each time appreciated. His method of sub-image movie art utilizes a sort of “syntactic ambiguity,” much like the famous German postcard drawing from 1888 of the young girl/old woman. Mental energy is necessary for the observer to first perceive, and then keep a selected aspect in focus.
Soon after David started loving his mother, the frozen son, Martin recovers. This introduces a theme in opposition to the illuminated interpretation of story of St. George, which is symbolic of the path from darkness (ignorance), to light (gnosis).
St. Martin of Tours (316AD) was the son of senior officer in the Imperial Horse Guard of the Roman army. At the age of fifteen he was required to join an ala (wing) of the cavalry and later became a part of the Emperor’s elite bodyguard.
Martin was born soon after Constantine the Great legalized Christianity in 313 and adopted the faith at an early age. Although Christians were accepted in the Roman army, the prevalent religion (especially in the Roman army) was Mithraism. The bodyguard unit favored employing Christians because they believed them less likely to participate in assassinations or plots against the Emperor.
The Christian writer, Sulpicius Severus (363 – 425AD) records that Martin was charged with cowardice and jailed for refusing to fight a battle in the Gallic provinces at Borbetomagus.
…he said to Cæsar, “Hitherto I have served you as a soldier: allow me now to become a soldier to God: let the man who is to serve thee receive thy donative: I am the soldier of Christ: it is not lawful for me to fight.” Then truly the tyrant stormed on hearing such words, declaring that, from fear of the battle, which was to take place on the morrow, and not from any religious feeling, Martin withdrew from the service. But Martin, full of courage, yea all the more resolute from the danger that had been set before him, exclaims, “If this conduct of mine is ascribed to cowardice, and not to faith, I will take my stand unarmed before the line of battle tomorrow, and in the name of the Lord Jesus, protected by the sign of the cross, and not by shield or helmet, I will safely penetrate the ranks of the enemy.” He is ordered, therefore, to be thrust back into prison, determined on proving his words true by exposing himself unarmed to the barbarians. But, on the following day, the enemy sent ambassadors to treat about peace and surrendered both themselves and all their possessions. In these circumstances who can doubt that this victory was due to the saintly man?
Instead of embracing the high level of Mithraic honor and prestige that was his right by birth, Saint Martin followed the Christian faith. His story is the opposite of the Masonic concept of slaying one’s dragon. Monica’s reawakened son Martin symbolizes the path of ignorance.
At this point in understanding the role that the two sons play in the realm of A.I. “sub-images”, the prevalence of the moon symbol throughout A.I. can be explained.
It is highly probable that Kubrick included the moon imagery in his version of the movie and Spielberg had no problem capitalizing on the idea. Amblin Entertainment and DreamWorks production label logos both use the image of the moon.
The unification of the man (The sun – Sol Invictus – Attis -Nachash) and the woman (The moon – Cybele – Eve) depicts the time when the Nachash takes on human form to rule the earth. The serpent has been separated from his “love” (Eve) since the garden and as the Illuminated would describe, both the moon (Eve) and the sun (Nachash) have longed to be together once more after their unjust and harsh separation by God.
An example of this concept occurs in the alchemic symbolic illustration of Basil Valentine’s “Azoth” at the beginning of the thirty–second degree in Albert Pike’s, Morals And Dogma. Hermes is represented as the “Rebis,”( from the Latin res bina, meaning “dual or double matter”) symbolizing the “great work” completed. (The egg that he is contained, hatched) While still in the egg, Hermes is known as “Harpocrates,” from a Greek derivative of the Egyptian, Har-pa-khered (meaning “Horus the Child”). Notice the sun and male head on the left and the moon next to the female on the right.
Harpocrates is the identity of the “Star Child” in the transparent egg from Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
The relationship between Monica – David and Monica-Martin more clearly reveals David as Harpocrates. It is symbolic of the encounter in the Garden of Eden between the Subtle One and Eve – albeit on a highly esoteric level. David, as the new sentient human-like entity, is both representative of the “innocence” of intervening angel as well as the myth of his future coming as the savior of man.
Monica reading to David in the “moon chamber” was symbolic of man’s potential “correct” path towards the eventual “hatching of the egg of Harpocrates.”
Later after Martin returns, Monica replaces David with her “real boy” in the moon chamber symbolizing man’s ignorant refusal to worship their “true” god.
The alchemic magic cannot occur with Martin in the bed.
The conflict between David and Martin ends with Monica abandoning David in the forest, since Monica decided to stop short of taking him to where he would have been destroyed.
David’s only companion is the super toy, Teddy (Teddy is a version of the Old English Edmund (“wealthy protector”) or the Greek theo – “god” and doros “gift”) who was given to him for companionship. Teddy remains with David until the end.
The next scene in A. I. introduces the sex mecha, Gigolo Joe (Jude Law) in a scene where he is visiting one of his female clients who fears physical relationships with humans.
Joe asks her after seeing her bruises:
“Are these the wounds of love?”
Read the short portion of the scene’s dialogue below, replacing Joe with “Serpent” and Patricia with “Eve.”
“You are a goddess, Patricia. You wind me up inside. But
you deserve much better in your life. You deserve me.”
Music emanating from Joe’s finger:
“Cause I only have eyes for you.
The moon may be high,
but I can’t see a thing in the sky
Cause I only have eyes for you!”
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Gen 3:4-5
From the Online Etymological Dictionary:
“professional male escort or dancing partner, young man supported financially by an older woman in exchange for his attentions,” 1922, from French gigolo, formed as a masc. of gigole “tall, thin woman; dancing girl; prostitute,” perhaps from verb gigoter “to move the shanks, hop,” from gigue “shank” , also “fiddle,” Old French giga from Frankish *giga- or some other Germanic word (compare German Geige “fiddle”). This is perhaps the same word that was borrowed earlier as Middle English giglot “lewd, wanton girl,” which was later applied to males with the sense “villainous man.” It is perhaps related to a number of words in Germanic meaning “dance, gambol,” and “fiddle,” perhaps connected by the notion of “rapid, whirling motion.”
Joe’s depiction in the movie seems appropriate understanding whom he represents, since the lover of the woman in the garden is described in similar terms.
The “Lord of the flying or flitting ones” is contemporarily described as an expert fiddler; and master of the Geige.
Reinforcing the concept of Joe as the unjustly accused Light Bringer, Joe is “summoned” to the Shangri-La hotel.
Shangri-La is a fictional place described in the 1933 novel Lost Horizon by British author James Hilton. Hilton describes Shangri-La as a mystical, harmonious valley, gently guided from a lamasery, enclosed in the western end of the Kunlun Mountains. Shangri-La has become synonymous with any earthly paradise.
There is an interesting moment in the movie when Gigolo Joe and the female sex mecha “Jane” pass by each other at the entrance to the hotel.
Jane asks the revealing male right hand, “Hi Joe! What do you know?” (What do you know indeed! Subtle.)
Joe responds to the concealing left hand female aspect, “Hi Jane! How’s the game?”
If Kubrick is involved, much is richly hidden using every aspect that movie media offers. Joe and Jane momentarily express a Baphomet in “moving picture“ form.
Kubrick definitely understood the meaning of the Baphomet.
Above Joe and Jane during their brief encounter is a blue heart with the Hebrew (the language of the people who received God’s law) words:
אהבה Love ahavah
כשרה Kosher Kshera
“Kosher love” is love under the law of God. The “god” that made David had no love for him. Mecha love machines were made only for the act of “love” but without understanding or emotion.
Dr. Hobby clearly indicates bitterness towards God’s lack of love for mankind.
(From the first scene in A.I. )
FEMALE TEAM MEMBER
“But you haven’t answered my question. If a robot could
genuinely love a person, what responsibility does that
person hold toward that mecha in return?
It’s a moral question, isn’t it?”
“The oldest one of all. But in the beginning, didn’t God
create Adam to love him?”
Kosher (God’s) love is like the “love” given by the androids – not real. It is a performance without substance.
The “Baphomet moment” under the “lie of God’s love” neatly defines the whole meaning of the movie. The limitations on earth imposed by the unjust God of the Hebrews perpetually stifle mankind’s “god potential” while the arcane power of the Nachash, illustrated by the Baphomet, continually struggles to remedy man’s plight. Guess who wins in A. I. ?
Joe enters room 102 of the Shagri-la hotel to find his woman client murdered by her jealous husband. Although innocent of any wrong doing, Joe cuts out his “operating license” and becomes a fugitive.
The Trinity of A.I.
Gigolo Joe is the Nachash at and just after the Garden. He goes to “Shangri-la” and visits the “client” woman. From there he is a fugitive, unjustly accused of murder.
The mecha boy (David) is Harpocrates. – He is the son of the godlike, but unjust Dr. Hobby and also the son of Gigolo Joe – “born” after Joe and from the same technology, only with a new, vital human characteristic.
The Holy Spirit:
Teddy the super-toy bear gives sound advice to David throughout the movie.