| Redmanthatcould |
11-19-2007 01:17 PM |
South Park - "Imaginationland" Trilogy (Spoiler alert!)
The three episodes are numbers 163 (?Imaginationland?), 164 (?Imaginationland: Episode II?), and 165 (?Imaginationland: Episode III?). I could go on about how funny they were, and how they still push the envelope of what is acceptable?but I?d rather discuss the mind-fuck aspect of the series. I?ll try to not give too much away.
Let me start by reiterating that you should watch the 3-part South Park series before you read what I?ve got here. Without a doubt, these three episodes were the most sophisticated ones I?ve seen from them. That being said, it?s still South Park, so there are definitely certain themes you might not enjoy if you are not a fan?
--- SPOILER ALERT --- SPOILER ALERT --- SPOILER ALERT ---
It starts with Cartman claiming to have seen a Leprechaun, which Kyle is highly skeptical of. So Cartman makes a bet, which Kyle agrees to (by signing a contract), that if the Leprechaun exists, Kyle has to suck Cartman?s balls; if it doesn?t, Cartman owes Kyle $10. This was one of the underlying stories across all three episodes.
They end up catching the Leprechaun, and we find out the Leprechaun is from ?Imaginationland? and is trying to warn of a terrorist attack. So it goes, they travel to the universal place which all things imaginary exist. A terrorist group attacks this place with a suicide bombing. Imagionationland was setup with a division ? one side held ?good? characters/ideas, while the other held ?bad? characters/ideas ? which was divided by a wall. The terrorists break down the wall, which leads to our ?imaginations running wild?.
This is fucking brilliant. Terrorists attacking our imagination?come on?that is genius, admit it! The government then gets involved, and the Supreme Court rules that because our imagination is not ?real?, the military can nuke this ?land? without having to go through Congress/government. I skimmed over a lot of the story, because this is as much as I need to interpret the idea of ?imagination?.
As to not get into a semantic argument, you need to be OK with the fact that it is universally accepted that things we can?t ?call for? in the real world, might ?exist? somewhere else. Feel free to believe in God, love, and Santa Claus; but understand that they all have the same property of no-worldy-impression. Other concepts seem to have an impression in the world, but can still fall into the same category; you know what a unicorn is, and we can see/use it at our leisure, but the idea of ?unicorn? can only be called for from our minds. If you are OK with this so far, then read on.
The episodes sparked some really interesting ideas; none of which I claim to have answers to, but I will play devil?s advocate, to stimulate some thought.
Is there a ?realm? that exists, that houses our general imagination? Ideas like Santa Claus, love, God, cartoon characters, etc., don?t ?exist? in the world, but we can all think about these topics?so where do we ?call for them?? A unique position that Kyle brings up, is how ?real? these objects/ideas are. The thought is they ?exist? by transcending time; meaning they have been ?around? before us, and will seemingly be ?around? after us. So are these ?imaginary? objects/ideas real? Are they more ?real? than us, since they ?exist? long before and long after we do?
Another semantic argument will come up as far as what is meant by ?real?, and ?exist?. It is tough to explain, especially since they require context (i.e.: real how? Exist where? etc.). These can be very tough roadblocks to get past, but the main thought is?where does the imagination reside, and is there a general/universal ?imagination? that is more real than humans themselves?
There are some ideas from number theory and metalogic that can *help*, but I don?t think they necessarily apply. The thought is numbers exist somewhere that does not rely on human interaction; calculus would be calculus with or without humans.
Would God, love or Santa Claus still be God, love and Santa Claus, with or without humans?
|
