How, in the name of All that is Sacred, does one propose a discussion about the a philosophy as voiced by the esteemed  Dr. Thomas Sowell vis a vis "The Matrix" movie trilogy? I can only answer: with a great deal of mental gymnastics (by the author) and a great deal of patience (on the part of the reader). But, given a sufficient amount of both, I am certain some degree of communication can be achieved.

I am, of course, starting with the premise that the reader is at least vaguely familiar with the three movies that carry the name "The Matrix." If you have not seen the movies - or at least one of the trilogy - I fear we have little common ground on which to begin. In the faint hope that even this hurdle can be cleared, I will attempt a brief synopsis of what the movies presented. By necessity, since I do want to spend most of this piece on the philosophy of Thomas Sowell, this will be the briefest - clearly, not one of my strengths - of explanations. My only reason for attempting this Sisyphean quest is that if I can be modestly successful, perhaps I will not lose all my readers.

The Matrix, at its simplest level, involves the quest by a hero (Neo) to free mankind from the domineering forces embodied in the Matrix. His sojourn begins when he, himself, is freed by a band of rebels (Morpheus, Trinity - Neo's love interest - and others) seeking a "savior." He is shown that, by "freeing his mind" he is able to escape the world of physical laws and even death, itself, and accomplish miracles. He undergoes training, dispensed by his liberators and others (including a soothsayer, "The Oracle") and is shown that there are, really, two worlds. The world defined by the biological and physical laws he has believed all his life and another world. A world which has no constraints, limitations or boundaries. This alternative world - which really only exists in the imagination - is molded by the minds that have been liberated of their physical bodies. And, in the mind’s eye, anything is possible. If you can believe something can exist or be done - really believe it - it is possible. Nothing, in the world that your intellect can visualize, is impossible. You can stop bullets in flight, move at startling speed, bend time to your will, leap great distances, successfully defeat an invincible enemy and, yes, save mankind. This is the world that is possible, if only you can believe. As the hero proclaims at the climax of the first movie, he will show men - once and for all - "a world without rule and controls, without borders or boundaries." The "real" world is a dirty, dangerous, confined and limited existence for man but, with the right insight and the right leaders, anything is possible.

It is just this duality that Dr. Sowell addresses in, just like The Matrix, a trilogy of books: "The Vision of the Anointed," "The Quest for Cosmic Justice," and "A Conflict of Visions." I have reviewed his book "Black Rednecks/White Liberals" in an earlier entry on this site. Dr. Sowell is formally trained as an economist but has been widely acknowledged for his political and philosophical writings. He was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 1998. British historian and author Paul Johnson has called Dr. Sowell "America’s leading philosopher." Others have not shared this view, particularly within the civil rights community. Dr. Sowell, despite the slings and arrows, is clearly an insightful, prolific writer and, in my opinion, speaks to the left-brain logic and the hearts of many readers. To lay my cards face-up on the table, Dr. Sowell is on my "Very Short List" of living people with whom I would truly enjoy having a dinner conversation. Perhaps, I will complete that list in a future entry here.

In these three books, Dr. Sowell delineates the true locus of sociological, legal, political and most other categories of debate in this country and worldwide. It seems that, when all the rhetoric and words are boiled down to their essence, there are two basic world views that lie at the core of most issues.

Historically, those who wrote of these two world views were William Godwin, the Marquis de Condorcet, and John Maynard Keynes (unconstrained) and Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and Milton Friedman (constrained). In specific arguments, these two view might be called in politics, "conservative" and "liberal." In economic debates, they would be "laissez faire capitalism" and "socialism." In sociological terms, the two visions might be termed "tragic" and "moral."

Perhaps, with two quotes, I can pull back the curtain, just a bit, on the conflict of these two visions:

• "Young man, the secret of my success is that at an early age I discovered I was not God."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Supreme Court Justice

• "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not."

Robert Kennedy (Quoting from George Bernard Shaw)

If one examines each quote, we see a snapshot, if you will, of how each speaker views the world. The jurist, Holmes, sees his success sprouting from the realization that he is not God. Consequently, he is nether omniscient nor omnipotent. In lacking these express powers, he posits that he cannot change, in any real fundamental way, the nature of man. Kennedy, in quoting the Fabian philosopher Shaw, sees the world quite differently. He sees not what exists, but what could be. In Kennedy’s gaze, the world can be changed - primarily through the actions of man - and for the betterment of all. It is within the power of man or men to significantly alter the path of civilization. All one needs to do, as articulated by The Matrix’s hero, is to "free your mind."

It is these two visions - man is as he is and the species cannot be essentially altered versus mankind can be bettered and has unlimited potential for good - that is the buttress of these two world views. [For a lyrical depiction of the two views, I will refer the reader to contrast Hank Williams Jr.’s "I’ll Never Get Outta This World Alive" (constrained) with John Lennon’s "Imagine" (unconstrained)].

In the dichotomy formulated by Dr. Sowell, arguments one hears every day take on a clearer meaning. The obscure, when dissected down to the core vision being embraced, becomes much clearer. Unfortunately, for those defending either side, such clarity often - at least when judged by their rhetoric - remain elusive and, usually, contentious. In fact, even the terms used in the arguments are often defined differently. When someone arguing from a constrained vision uses the word "freedom," he is often meaning something entirely different from that held by the unconstrained vision. Similarly, when someone with the unconstrained vision seeks to discuss "equality," his meaning is often totally misconstrued by the opponent holding the constrained vision. It often sounds - as many political debates do - as if the opponents are speaking the same language but using different dictionaries. Obviously, under such obfuscation, there is scant hope for understanding.

Further, it is often instructive to listen closely to how opposing arguments are dismissed by its adversaries. Often, one hears, from the proponents of the unconstrained side of the disputation that the opposition has "oversimplified a complex issue" or that they are dismissed because "this is an emotional issue." Or one side may argue that their antagonist is "insensitive" or is wrongheadedly "blaming the victim." One side may call for the majority to "sacrifice for the general good" or for "a higher principle" of justice, equality, compassion, et al. For example, one may argue as columnist Anna Quindlen did some years ago about parents who objected to their children being forced to attend public school with children who had the AIDS virus:

"We should ask some parents to put their children at some risk, however small, for the sake of principle and fairness." ("No Bright Lines," N.Y. times, July 6, 1991, p. A21)

It is the very persuasive strength of visions that often severe ties to rationality and, far too often in public discourse, to courtesy. Since these views of the world are so polarized, there are no such things as latitudes and certainly no such thing as an equator. Thus, there is no middle ground. For those with these visions, the issues are usuall "all or none" considerations. Returning to the "The Matrix" as a rhetorical device, it is as if those who hold the constrained vision see one world (the dark, dangerous "real" world) and those with the unconstrained vision see the world through Neo’s designer shades - i.e. what it could be without constraints and "devices of man." In the unconstrained vision there are problems just waiting to be solved. In the constrained vision, there are, indeed, problems. But there are rarely absolute solutions and, even more infrequently, simple answers. The best we can hope for are trade-offs that must be weighed and vetted with facts and evidence. For the unconstrained, the motto might well be: "Don’t just sit there, do something!" For the constrained, it might just be: "Don’t do something. Sit there!" Or at least, borrowing from Spike Lee, "Don’t do something; do the right thing."

Superficially, it sounds a great deal like the impasse fathers (constrained) have when discussing his hard-won and often-painful experiences and subsequent wisdom with their sons (unconstrained). Or, similarly, mothers with their daughters. While these are true conflicting visions of significant consequences for the families involved, parent-child conflicts do not have the broad societal (or, indeed, international) implications that occur when visions collide on these larger stages. And there have been such collisions all along the wreckage-strewn highway of civilization.

One of the myriad examples used by Sowell to contrast the visions historically are the two great revolutions of the 18^th century. Specifically, the American and French Revolutions of the 18th Century. While both may seem to be simply attempts to throw off he yoke of monarchs, their leaders and their ultimate goals were, as Dr. Sowell explains in The Quest for Cosmic Justice completely dissimilar. While the rhetoric was similar and Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported, at least initially, both upheavals, the goals were dissimilar. Sowell states that their fundamental differences was in the rule of law. Where the United States established a purposefully intricate system of checks and balances through its Constitution and Bill of Rights, the revolutionary French sought absolute rule by a perceived elite. Members of the French national assembly were empowered as "representatives on mission." They were, essentially, empowered to right wrongs wherever they were seen and could overrule local governments and laws when found against the public interest. It is said they even transported their own guillotines with them and could dispense needed "justice" on their own initiative. At the national level, the "Committee of Public Safety" under Maximilien Robespierre assumed absolute power. Robespierre was a follower of one of the original unconstrained thinkers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Of course, this led to the "Reign of Terror" and the subsequent ascension of a new emperor, Napoleon.

Robespierre is described in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) as follows:

"A well-educated and accomplished young lawyer, he might have acquired a good provincial practice and lived a happy provincial life had it not been for the Revolution. Like thousands of other young Frenchmen, he had read the works of Rousseau and taken them as gospel. Just at the very time in life when this illusion had not been destroyed by the realities of life, and without the experience which might have taught the futility of idle dreams and theories, he was elected to the states-general."

"At Paris he was not understood till he met with his audience of fellow disciples of Rousseau at the Jacobin Club. His fanaticism won him supporters; his singularly sweet and sympathetic voice gained him hearers; and his upright life attracted the admiration of all. As matters approached nearer and nearer to the terrible crisis, he failed, except in the two instances of the question of war and of the kings trial, to show himself a statesman, for he had not the liberal views and practical instincts which made Mirabeau and Danton great men. His admission to the Committee of Public Safety gave him power, which he hoped to use for the establishment of his favorite theories, and for the same purpose he acquiesced in and even heightened the horrors of the Reign of Terror. It is here that the fatal mistake of allowing a theorist to have power appeared." [Emphasis mine]

In so many words, he was young, idealistic and, surely, had good intentions. And we all know with what bricks the road to Hell is paved with, don't we?

The point is that the American Revolutionary leaders - particularly James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, writers of The Federalist Papers, and John Adams - were all of the constrained school of thought. In short, they has a rather tragic view of man left to his own devices. They believed Edmund Burke, literally, when he wrote: "We cannot change the nature of things and of man - but we must act upon them the best we can." In the Federalist Papers there is this:

"It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature."

And this classic constrained view from Federalist #51:

"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not confirm to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." [emphasis mine]

To summarize, the American Revolution was prosecuted and completed with a distinctly "constrained" vision. It has been, despite a continued bumpy road, successful now for approaching 250 years. The French Revolution was led by those who held the "unconstrained" vision and subsequently failed. These are some of the lessons that Dr. Sowell would not have us forget.

In the second installment of this entry, I will discuss attempts from the near and distant past that were initiated through the vision-inspired zeal of those with the unconstrained view. The champions of these programs, like the young Robespierre, undeniably had "good intentions." It was never doubted, even by the naysayers, that the advocates voiced worthy goals amid their lofty grandiloquence. Some of these goals pluck our heartstrings even today - "a hand up, not a hand out," "equality for all," "an end to poverty," "a equal chance at the American Dream." Some are new: "health care is a right not a priviledge," "it is society's duty to eliminate the root causes of crime" and "100 percent employment in our time."

However, it was not the goals or the "good intentions" that miscarried these noble efforts at social engineering. It was their effectuation that failed to achieve the desired results. Social engineering, even with the best of intentions, is subject - as are we all - to the "thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to." In any mature, complex society (and especially in ours), there are too many variables and unknowns that elude even the best minds. These omnipresent  "wildcards" will mutate and change the course of all grandiose efforts to change sociocultural order in a predictable, patterned way. Just as no river flows in a perfectly straight line in nature, so too is the course of social change. It is the underlying geology, etched and hardened from centuries of gradual change, that determines the course of a river, not the volume of the flow. Yet, those with a vision fixed on a Utopia continue their efforts.  Often, unfortunately, these efforts terminate with irreparable consequences to those they seek to help.

As Robert Burns - and those with the constrained view - have observed:

"The best-laid plans of mice and men, often go awry."