Clearly, hippy-dippy arm-waving is a preferable explanation to what the co-author of the film believes.
As has been pointed out, Kubrick and Clarke had differing views about the story. In the end, Kubrick was the one who got to decide what ended up on film, and I think actually looking at the film is probably the best way to speculate about his intent. Although throwing out inane, childish insults is a close second, I’ll grant you. Let me know how that’s working out for you.
'nuff said
Apparently not.
I also recall Kubrick and Clarke disagreeing about the meaning of the film.