![Digital Theatre [DTheatre.com]](images/logo.png){kind=logo}
|
Starring on Dtheatre's Stage: Latest Movie News & Trailers, TV News and Productions,
Special Free Guides, Gadgets and Expert Reviews on Varity of Exciting Zones. We actually have a special expert responsible for every post series. Come back soon, you will always find new interesting things! |
By Ag February 26, 2004 4:12 PM
dTheatre.com is fortunate and proud to present the first internet review of "What the #$*! Do We Know?" (also known as What the Bleep?) a independent feature/documentary hybrid on mysticism and science. The film opens at the Bagdad Theater in Portland, OR starting on Friday, February 27th.
The Passion of the Nucleus:
?What the #$*! ?Do We Know??
Challenges Our Sacred Mad Cows
By
Andy Gurevich
| comments: 123
this really is a rabbit hole... 
reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 2, 2004 11:56 PM
...and doesn't have much to do with real science. The film invokes quantum mechanics in the most superficial way ("did you know you never actually touch anything") and then goes on and on about how unintuitive the quantum world is. That's certainly true. However, the film then constructs an "alternative intuition", if you will, that reality doesn't really exist, or that it's really constructed by our consciousness, that our brains don't know the difference between reality and memory because they look the same on PET scans, etc., etc. (sound like your inane philosophy 101 discussions?).
A more prosaic explanation might be that since we don't experience the quantum world in any sort of everyday way (that's why they build the big particle accelerators), there is no reason to expect that our intuition or senses would have evolved to understand the quantum world easily, in the way we understand time, cause and effect, or gravity on an everyday level. In other words, maybe quantum mechanics is hard to understand because our brains haven't *had* to understand it until very recently, and so we have to use our intellectual capacities to study it as an advanced physics subject (in the same way we study reading or math, which also are not part of our evolutionary past). Of course, such an explanation would be a real downer, since it wouldn't allow for all the new age self-actualization talk that makes up the last half of the film. Gee, reality bites...
There is one thing that this film does *really* well, although I think it's unintentional. It does a superb job of showing how desperate we humans can be to impose reason, purpose, and meaning on the chaotic and uncaring universe we live in, jettisoning our better judgement in the process. We as a society don't seem able to accept that reality may not be intuitive and that there may not be some uber-being out there with a plan and reason for our existence. There's a lot we don't know, and lots of mystery left in the world; but rather than accept it as mysterious, we have to replace the mystery with what we want to be true.
Oh, and the filmmakers also showed that if you wrap up lame fragments of quantum, new age self-help blather, religion-bashing, addiction and body image issues, and cosmic interconnectedness into one big hallucinatory fattie, you'll sell a lot of tickets in Portland! But hey, they took some great footage of this beautiful town (especially its wonderful light-rail system), so I guess not every frame is a bad joke...just don't think this is a NOVA special or even close to that credible.
? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 3, 2004 8:12 AM
Dude, U suck.
My 2 Cent Review reply
Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on March 3, 2004 10:21 AM
Perhaps it was because I followed Andy's advice and smoked a joint for the "full effect," but I thought What the #$*! Do We Know? was pretty good. Definitely the best indie, maybe even the best movie to come out of Portland since Zero Effect or My Own Private Idaho. The story segments and animations which run parallel with the documentary were a bit cheesy but mostly tolerable and well produced. I was however a little creeped out by Ramtha.. What The Bleep?!
about reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 3, 2004 12:08 PM
If you go to the film's official site it claims that "Ramtha" is a 35,000 year old individual who has channeled his consciousness into a contemporary woman named JZ Knight. Then it conjures up some polygraph vodoo to justify this claim. I agree...what the fuck? I imagine they didn't put this in the end bios because they thought that this claim was too much for the audiece to stomach...
My 50cent review Yo reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 4, 2004 1:48 AM
Like the Matrix?
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 10, 2004 1:49 PM
whatever...stupid jew.
Quality of "what the bleep" reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 12, 2004 4:04 PM
Whether "what the bleep" was an incredibly approachable view on a vast topic, or an incredibly "new agey" mumbo-jumbo version should be moot. The fact that it attempts to broach the topic is amazing. The fact that people are enjoying it is even more so. I'd rather have ten movies like this than one "Rambo".
some and repudiators reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 15, 2004 1:39 AM
some will repudiate any event in the world- the first commentary on the review seemed to do so - One might miss the point of the movie easily that is well expressed by one of the scientists- there is no sin -- he says " there is only evolution and devolution" that is the whole perspective, ideal, and aim of the movie- to repudiate it as quantamly unsatisfying or saying it is not credible- evokes a particular spirit of the majority of the scientific world that the author of the first comment seems to agree with - that science is valid - that is more than that a God -- it is admitted and displayed in the film that God is far above the mention of any one within this realm -- this imbecile seems to have replaced that notion with a self righteous ethic based solely in intellectual understand rather than appreciate that someone is challenging folks to look froward and askance at typical values, paradigms and peer in a more sublime fashion into the workings of understanding-- for a scientific bozo who'd like to explain the universe as if he was standing outside of it - this movie falls far short as does his life and ideal, but for a being who wants to understand to a simply greater degree their own interactions and positions within that universe this film is an inspiration, consideration and in its highest possible regard a prayer, so along with the priests of puritan value you can burn in the hell that you have created, mr. epistemologist - is this my resentment - well you lit the match with your arrogant reprisal against a truer human's honest work... but I don't mean anything and you're the God who understands the workings of this world, right?
? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 15, 2004 7:48 AM
Like 9/11?
RE: ? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 15, 2004 1:46 PM
i was obviously just kidding. the response is thought provoking and essentially sound. the person makes some truly astute observations about the nature of the film and the reality of its creator's motives. my review does not attempt to endorse or even understand the film's metaphysical scaffolding. on the contrary, the truthfullness of the elements was of no concern to me. i was interested in the attempt, the model, as an intellectual exercise. that's why i started with the story about my aunt. the value in these paradigm shaking texts lies in their ability to subvert our unchecked biases, resulting in a humility and acceptance of others and a renewed thirst for knowledge and wisdom. sure, new age boneheads will and often do try to ride this wave of intellectual optimism all the way to the shore, but what ultimately is the harm in that if they bring a reconcilliatory and communal epistemology along with them. try the model on and see not if it is true but rather how much it helps you come to terms with your own essential limitation. herein lies its primary value. sorry again about the jew comment but i was in a hurry.
Bleep and MindWalk reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 25, 2004 1:11 AM
We're watching a movie, not shaving our heads. Mind Walk didn't start any cults that I know of, so take a breath and relax. The water crystals were the only news to me. Everything else is more or less covered in The Tao of Physics. Sadly, the water crystals were the most unbelievable element at the same time, and marked the moment when my eyes began to glaze over. But, hey, it was better than Rambo, and on an elitist note: it doesn't hurt to run it by the plebes now and again.
why the title reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 29, 2004 8:34 PM
The only thing I did not like was the title. Science was made entertaining and enlightening. I loved it. Can't wait for the CD. BTW why is it so bleeping hard to find it at a theater?
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 30, 2004 4:07 PM
wow, is someone here resorting to nasty, throwback, unenlightened, racist ignorance?
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 30, 2004 4:08 PM
what color is your skin? what color is your hair? what's your religion? where is your heart?
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by drunvalo2px (drunvalob4u8@yahoo.com) on April 4, 2004 12:13 AM
You've missed the point. This film, in my filtration of it is trying to show how unified this all (universe) is in it's seeming seperation of the grand illusion.
Your comments seem very unhappy and that the film didn't portray your idea of reality. Never-the-less you are my beloved self for we were all there at the begining, at event number one.
Hell of a Movie reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 4, 2004 2:13 PM
Say, can I change my life by thoughts? is that not the same as following the commercials and changing my life of fitting in? I like this and I also wonder why the Government and the CATHOLIC CHURCH are allowing it,,but Hallelujah I say, the Good News is that it is all science.. and how can you go wrong with that,,now I wonder why the scientists are not touting this movie? Is it because they want to control the rabbit hole? and who can control that? its always spining beckoning..as for me I am for the new and the unknown..this movie made me think, cry ( the hate myself routine) and contemplate why am i here..
GREAT WORK!!!!
Recommended by my University Science Department reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 11, 2004 8:21 PM
This movie was recommended to me from a science professor at an Oregon University. As a senior physics major, I found it thought provoking and inspiring. The "science" of it is valid, although much of current science on these issues is just beginning to unfold in our generation. So, interpretations on what our "new" understanding about the universe means is the topic of the day. I am glad that someone took an interesting topic, mixed it with an attempt to frame it into what it could mean to us, and put it out for people to see. If you enjoyed this movie I would also recommend the DVD of the NOVA special titled, "The Elegant Universe". It has to do with string theory and it's ramifications to our understanding of the universe. Link to Elegant Website
re: it is a rabbit hole reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 28, 2004 1:34 PM
I didn't really like the movie all that much. I appreciate what they were trying to do or say, and I'm happy to see a film that actually requires one to think, but I don't feel that they were able to successfully support their theories with "scientific evidence" or logic. Their example of the Natives' inability to see the Spanish fleet due to a lack of knowledge of their existence doesn't prove that the Spanish fleets didn't exist. Whether they saw them or not, whether they liked it or not those ships were still going to land there. So how are they in control of reality? Maybe I'm just not fully understanding... I also had a bit of a problem with the way that they attacked organized religion (Catholicism specifically). Now I'm not religious or anything, but I feel that attacking doctrines of Christianity without any physical evidence to disprove their beliefs kinda puts them on the same level as fundamentalist bible thumpers who preach hell and eternal damnation for all who don't share their views.
I'm all for radical ideas, theories, and ways of thinking, but there has to be solid evidence. Especially if the movie is claiming to use solid scientific evidence. Showing me pictures of snowflakes and then telling me they're actually water droplets infused with "the chi of love" does not prove anything. How do we know the experiment ever took place? Just because they tell us it did? Especially considering that "experiment" was supposed to prove a major point...that you can control the "world" around you with your mind.
I like the message that the film was trying to send, but I really can't take it all that seriously.
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 16, 2004 11:38 PM
I must say that "What the Bleep" is one of the most amazing films I have seen. Not only because of the courage of the film makers to do something like that but as well because it is great that there is a film with something that goes beyond funny special effects or hot girls in swimming suits.
About the comment of "this is really a rabbit hole", I would say to the writer...this is a different film whether it is made of series of "lame fragments of quantum, new age self-help blather, religion-bashing, addiction and body image issues" it is a much better thing that what you could have done in order to enhance the human mind and the human power. This is even better than a NOVA documentary becuase none of those would ever make you so aware of what you really are in such a light-hearted way.
By the way, I am a student on Genomic Sciences in Mexico city and I'm not ignorant to any of these subjects, I am not a new ager or a vegetarian...I am only someone who likes innovative and challenging things no matter how ridiculous those can be... A long time ago somebody like you said that that it was impossible and not close to science to make a vehicle which could defy gravity and now...planes are more than somebody's mumbo-jumbo thinking
RE: some and repudiators reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 19, 2004 4:15 PM
That has got to be the most ignorant comment I have ever seen. So because a person noticed that the movie failed to do what it claimed it would "which is PROVE their theories USING QUANTUM PHYSICS AND SCIENCE" you think you have the right to tell someone to burn in hell? Sounds to me like you're the one who could use some enlightenment. You're pointing fingers at organized religion, and yet you're telling people to go to hell...hmmm...boy, you're intelligent. Not a hypocrite at all. No way.
RE: re: it is a rabbit hole reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 22, 2004 10:08 AM
Are you in or from the Northwest? You sound like a highly critical easterner. I have never run across a native Northwesterner with such a pissy attidude as yours. You should be grateful to get art on film like this. Either shut up or stay home!
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 22, 2004 10:20 AM
Who made you the expert?
What's wrong with dreaming or believing that there is something else out there? If there's a hell, you're probably going. If you are so unhappy, why are you still around using up resources?
what the reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 30, 2004 12:38 PM
I haven't seen the movie yet, but sure do enjoy reading the reviews.
more questions, less bashing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 10, 2004 10:03 AM
When did it become a crime to be cynical? Wasn?t this film born out of skepticism? I don?t see the point in grouping/attacking those who are being skeptical of anything presented to them, be it art or an optimistic notion of reality. Everyone should be encouraged to examine it by means of their own experience. No one stays home, no one shuts up.
What the bleep do we know! reply
Posted by Kathy Leatham (No Email) on June 12, 2004 1:31 PM
This film is going the direction that I would like to see more "entertainment" in our society go. It makes us think in a logical way and yet makes it entertaining. If humanity could understand what this film is saying to us, one day we will look back and realize how primitive our thinking currently is.
The Ego of Experience reply
Posted by Diamond Dave (WereOutThere@MSN.com) on June 13, 2004 12:31 AM
Let me start by saying that I loved this film. Great thanks for the brilliance of the creative mind and the resourcefulness of those involved in the production of WTBDWK. I need to be reminded / corroborated, of the field of possibility outside my actuality, periodically. My response is to clarify a couple points that reflect my understanding and may compliment the material that I think was beautifully refracted in this film. It's also a valuable exercise in concretizing my thoughts and I dig the opportunity to dialog the free expression of ideas Avail. via the worldwide web. I'm cautioned by 2 points either not acknowledged, or not well articulated in WTBDWK. Point 1) The presentation didn't include an expression of the possibility that there is a dynamic interrelation between my holographic universe and the holographic expression of others around me. It would seem fairly narcissistic to focus on my expression of the source without the contextual inclusion of other strands of expression of the source. While I'm sure I co-create, I suspect I am adjacent to, not central to, and certainly not of greater or less value than other expressions of the greater source. I suspect we are all necessary to a greater celestial score, unrecognized by me from my subjective point of reference, and the answer is related to my capacity to compliment this. Point 2) The recapitulation in WTBDWK of what I consider popularized spiritual idealism, which leads people to assume they are responsible for every material realization, is the epitome of spiritual egotism. Does the application of Quantum Physics displace Chaos Theory, or is the universe big enough to circumscribe the many facets of truth? Here's where you should jump off if you're uninterested in my schema. I guess some personal narrative is warranted to explain the 2 points I'm making, and the epistemology of their origin. While my interpretation is sufficient to buoy me, It's my trip, and I wouldn't assume it was congruent with your innermost imperative. I am a student, and this life experience is my teacher, a process I use to construct and reconstruct a cognitive schema that allows me to objectify my experience. Attaching myself to the limitations of my current subjective assessment would be antithetical to the point and premise I'm operating from, I'm sure more will be revealed. Caution: what follows may be interpreted as a personal threat to you're closely valued assumptions. If you've constructed an understanding that works for you, it's exactly rite for you rite now, and feel free to disregard my understanding. I've had several N.D.E.'s, and don't believe either the life I've experienced (my family's functional limitations, transforming an early Addiction to recovery and subsequent 20 yrs of abstinence, being subjugated to the power of nature and the subsequent hypothermic shock that led to an out of body experience, Testicular Cancer and the secondary medical arrogance / expertise I experienced, a random act of social violence and subsequent more poignant recognition of my vulnerability, 18 Yrs as a therapist steeped in the frailty of the human struggle for balance or the many sweet and remarkable successes I've entertained), have anything to do with my spiritual worth or maturity. Could it be that the experiences that befall every other person would be pardoned, and they would live happily ever after, if only they were more spiritually mature? Do less fortunate people, deserve the liability of their Governments ineffectual economic / healthcare / social / international policy? I'm certain I have choices, though I suspect they are variations on the theme that is available for my attention. Though I can through ignore / distract myself from the task at hand, the universal truth seems to escalate it's attempts to get my attention and redirect me in some direct inverse correlation to the degree I deviate from the task at hand, toward options congruent with my deepest spiritual objective. I'm here to do what it is I'm here to do, within the functional limitations of the context of the life available to me. I suspect when I've used the opportunities available to me toward my greater good, I'll move on to do what's next. Some of us will leave more opportunities unrealized than others, therein lies free will. I'm resolute in the value of the nonjudgmental observation of my experience, yet feel completely entitled to assign value to the constellation of experiences I'm offered. I recognize the value of the friction that polishes my stone. I adhere to the position we're spiritual beings having a human experience and I am comforted by that. I don't believe It is necessary to define the essential me, when I'm apparently here for this experience. I'm assume this physical experience is available to me to tease out and deconstruct assumptions / projections I construct to dispel the fear of the unknown and unrecognized. It is not necessary for me to know now the source of my origin to accomplish what I'm here to do, like it is unnecessary for me to know why I breathe to breath. It seems as valuable to recognize my authority as my vulnerability. I recognize the power of intention to manifest, and have exercised it, but to do so suggests I assume my conscious intention is a clearer reflection of my deepest imperative here, than my intuitive intention. Just because I may be able to exercise more authority over the actuality of my human experience, doesn't necessarily mean it will benefit me to do so. Just because human waste is unpleasant, doesn't mean I shouldn't create it and evacuate it I want this physical body to survive in this physical realm. I'm left with The Indigo Girls "There's more than one answer to these questions, pointing me in a crooked line, and the less I seek my source for some definitive, closer I am to fine". This is your trip, have some fun while you're at it. Reproduction is protected by Copyright 2004 David O.
The Ego of Experience reply
Posted by timmyfred (timsrags@msn.com) on June 15, 2004 4:10 PM
Excellent, Dave! Let's see who can top that.
"Free will is for amateurs" - quote from a metaphysical author I'm fond of.
you idiot reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 17, 2004 4:11 AM
the internet has become the place for anyone with an opinion to foist it on everybody, get lives, and die, by the way portland is one of the worst cities on the planet.
RE; this is really a rabbit hole reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 21, 2004 12:13 AM
Hi all!
Haven't seen the film yet, but I am going to..
I like the comment from
"a scientific pragmatic".
I think it highlights important pitfalls that occur in any exploration
scientific or otherwise - when our wishfull thinking comes up with a pleasant story and gets in a way of continuous experiencing of what is unfolding. Having studied both sciences and metaphysics, i have seen this phenomena with spiritual seekers as well as with statisticians...
As far as mystery is concerned, I don't believe that an evolution in our thinking and suggestion
of a new vision of reality kills the mystery in the world.
Models of the universe, reality and meaning of human life continue to evolve. This one is a hint of a new emerging worldview. No different in principle than what was first suggested by Newton, then later evolved into more sophisticated vision of Einstein, for example. Just evolution. Or as one of my good friends suggests deevolution (but that's another story).
So long live science AND spirituality. Long live Humanity in our on-going fascinating unfoldment!!!
RE: re: it is a rabbit hole reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 27, 2004 2:26 PM
You are all for radical ideas, but you need solid evidence??
Hmmmmm, okey dokey.
rabbit hole revisited reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 20, 2004 10:07 PM
This is the author who posted the original criticism of this film ("it really is a rabbit hole..."). It's amazing how much people think they know about you based on an opinion or two. Or maybe it's just easier to dismiss someone as "Mr. epistemologist", a cynic, or just plain "unhappy" and unworthy of consuming resources (that's a pretty tough sentence - death for unhappiness!). Let me just say that these folks aren't describing me, but rather the way they would personify the mean, evil person who would deign to question their conception of reality. But enough about them and me...
The substance of my argument was essentially this - that the film isn't scientific, in that it doesn't rely on evidence to justify its claims. The beauty of the scientific process is that all ideas, hypotheses, theories, etc. ultimately have to be compatible with available experimental evidence. That filter ultimately sorts through the ridiculous, the hopeful, and the well-meaning but wrong to produce the body of theory that explains what we know about the world better than all the other available theories. When a new theory comes along, it replaces old ones if it better predicts the reality we observe in experiment. Ultimately, all science answers to the data, and ideas that don't work are eventually jettisoned (not that this always happens right away).
So you can see why a scientist like me would be a bit miffed when someone passes off a bunch of pretty speculative ideas off as "proven by science" when there have been few if any experimental tests of those ideas. If you are a scientist, you know that this stuff ain't science, but if you are not a scientist, you might come away thinking that speculation alone is where science comes from. In a world where fine experimental work is under attack as "junk science" and real data are dismissed under political pressure, this really matters. And, for the record, if some of the speculations in this film turn out to be well-suported by experimental evidence, I'll be happy to accept them as science, given the caveat that "extraordianry claims require extraordinary evidence".
Maybe I could close with a much more everyday example of how amazingly single-minded we humans are once we get an idea in our heads (stuff like the placebo effect). We've all seen the various gizmos that promise to increase gas mileage in a car, along with all the testimonials that go with them. Now few (if any) of these devices ever shows an increase in mileage in the lab under controlled conditions and proper experimental protocols. Yet they still sell, and lots of people swear by them. Why? Because the drivers start thinking about all the increases in mileage they will get when they put the device in their car. They "think efficiency", and unconsciously start accelerating more modestly from stops, let off the gas earlier before red lights, etc., all behaviors that will increase fuel economy a bit. Then they check their odometers and gas bills and Wow! they improved their mileage! What a miracle! Our minds are very good at fitting the world into the patterns we expect. That's why we need to test our ideas against reality in situations that remove our bias. That's why we need science. (thanks to the Car Talk guys for that example...)
By the way, another poster referred to "The Elegant Universe" as a good place to learn about string theory. The produces of those programs make it clear that string theory actually doesn't have any experimental backing per se; nobody knows how to build the particle accelerator big enough to test the predictions of string theory. So you have to say that string theory is right now just scientifically plausible speculation that is consistent with the experimental data we do have (and very elegant mathematically). But nobody yet knows if string theory will pass a real experimental test (or if anybody will be able to test it at all).
What The Bleep - not a new idea reply
Posted by Seth (hillstar@hotmail.com) on August 7, 2004 11:09 AM
During the years I was a writer-producer-direction on the Leonard Nimoy In Search Of TV series, I heard many pitches for a movie with this plot: "The main character Achieves Higher Consciousness." It was a lame idea then, and still is. I'm astonished that someone actually got financing for such a movie.
I pose a question for the movie-makers. One of their experts said "You can walk on water if you really believe you can." Fine, I would sincerely love to see someone do that! If you can't do it because you haven't yet achieved higher consciousness, there must be someone somewhere who can. I would be fascinated to see them do it. Oh, there's no one in the present era who can? Hmmm. Then your statement "It's possible..." begins to sound - at best -wrong, and -at worst- an outright lie.
Tilting at windmills? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 20, 2004 10:51 AM
For all purposes, modern science operates as a religious enterprise. The peer review process and gatekeepers at universities determine what constitues legitimate topics for research. And as a result, we have astrophysicists who tell us, with a straight face, that 94% of the universe is dark matter we can't measure, and the whole thing is propped up by dark energy we can't explain! These scientists will of course ridicule any notions of metaphysical or paranormal phenomena. This movie is a welcome but fascile shot at the closed culture of "modern" science.
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 20, 2004 2:49 PM
Regardless if you agree or disagree with the overall thesis of the 'rabbit hole' post, one has to admire the validity of the points made and the elegance with which the argument was stated.
On the other hand, *desperate* is too strong a word to use in reference to our innate drive to impose meaning on all that we experience. Instead, our search for meaning is nothing more that a mechanism of the mind, and an automatic one at that.
Hard core new age propaganda reply
Posted by fyodor (fyodor@hotmail.com) on August 22, 2004 12:53 AM
First I'd like to pass on some comments from my girlfriend:
"They say there's no good or bad, but if they caught me torturing little puppies, I bet they wouldn't hesitate to tell me I was being real bad!"
"The wedding scene was self-indulgent film-making that looked like a cereal commercial!"
This movie just opened in Denver to quite a buzz, but I had no idea I was being sucked into a New Age recruiting mechanism. On a certain level it's fascinating that New Agers have taken this leap to legitimize their philosophy. And my direct experience of the flick alternated between mild entertaining to moderate annoyance. But intellectually I found it mostly useless and would largely concur with the first respondent to the review, who was mostly spot on. Except I would agree with the mild criticism offered that perhaps "desperate" is a bit strong. There's evidently a human need to make sense of the world, so why judge it as desperate? But those who claimed that that respondent must be sad are ridiculous. There's no need to be saddened by the reality that there is no external "purpose" to our existence. You're only exhibiting your own addiction (ha-ha!) to the need for such meaning when you get so defensive when someone challenges your belief system! Most pathetic of all are the respondents who said well at least it's better than really stupid movies like Rambo and such. I dunno, maybe you're young and have seen nothing but stupid movies all your lives, but to me that's like saying one shouldn't criticize the overcooked celery because at least it's better than the cardboard I usually eat!
Sigh. Look, new age philosophy has good and bad points to my mind, but this movie essentially sucked because it was essentially a propaganda and recruitment film for a marginally worthwhile (and as my girlfriend points out, potentially harmful by denying morality) POV based disengenuously on what the first respondent accurately pointed out is a very weak combination of psuedo-science and trendy social concerns.
But hey, if you get a kick out of it, fine. As I said, I thought it had its mildly entertaining moments. And who couldn't wish for a cranky, depressed woman to get out of her bad karma-induced rut? (Though I suspect she'll soon be back at the shrink's office begging for more pills to replace the ones she tossed out through the basketball net! And BTW, I bet that token black kid could whip her ass!!) But all in all, I wish we'd gone to see Bugs at the Imax instead!
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 24, 2004 3:39 PM
Sounds like one of these people is a mechanistic narrow minded classicaly top down pestimistic thinker, with a total lack of systems thinking or even minimally systems awareness. Beware of this out-moded faded form of weak thought, it's at the base of what fragments society and champions brother against brother in the name of wars! Ignorance is not bliss folks, lets try and wake up at least!
Truth:Proof
Proof:Truth
What is IS... Simply begin to acknowledge it and perhaps you will let you see...
RE: re: it is a rabbit hole reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 24, 2004 3:43 PM
There is Plenty of Solid evidence for the type of logic put forth thus, and I have not even seen the film. Just Based on the claims I have seen, nothing new here, just puting it to film does not make it new physics or ideas...
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 24, 2004 3:48 PM
Sounds like faith to me
Not a new ager' reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 25, 2004 11:37 AM
What's wrong with a movie that prompts someone to make positive changes in themselves (even if it is just thoughts), thus promoting positive changes in the world around them.
positive thoughts = positive feeling = positive actions. Sounds good to me.
Dogmatic Science is as bad as Dogmatic Religion! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 25, 2004 5:32 PM
Yes you may be correct here mainly in theory. One thing to keep in mind is that Truth does not have to be proved for it to have been so and to continue to be so {discovered or not}. 1+1 equaled 2 before anyone thought to represent that fact. Science can eventually validate some truths, but not all. Science is a tool not the yard stick for truth. No one ever scientifically or directly measured Love, a mind or even Gravity emperically. At most any evidence for somethings is simply indirect. Scientists have just as much faith in the existence of gravity for instance as religous zelots have in ideas of GOD.
Faith is Faith however it describes the data\experience.
Dogmatic Science is as bad as Dogmatic Religion!
Who is Holyer then whom? Who honors the truth more, and what in fact is Truth. If its not tangible, or externally measurable does it not exits? There is something very presumptuous about this questions built in assumptions and all questions posed like it.
It presoposes objective seperation of knower from known. And that is an ideological faith. A potential position one merely follows. Also an unproven position for the analy aware. Such views are a mere useful convention for the expression of the source in the most universaly understood format available for what ever scenario you find yourself in.
Religion is a metaphysical interpretation of experience, Science is physical one. They both are correlated and complimtary and exist interms of a tangled hierarcy not an orderd one. What gives rise to what, is in fact the wrong question to be asking! It has an erroneous assumption built in that has never be demonstrated in truth, neither subjectively nor objectively. But we wont point that out, just go from there as in a mere logical equation. The initial state of the system must be regarded, but since we can't measure every fact externally in some tangible way, then isnt there something wrong with the erroneous expectation of absolute objective proof, the holy grail of classical Science. This hope is exactly that, a presumptuous faith no more or no less valuable then any other championed ideology.
These old out moded top town theories need to give way and be complimented buy fresh systemic bottom up theories. The earth can be perceived factually as both round and or flat. It in fact has never been only either, but we sure have a but load of ideologies that make such assumptions. And you know what they say about those.
RE: rabbit hole revisited reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 26, 2004 1:07 AM
you illustrate quite beautifully that when you expect something, you do infact get it. isn't that what this movie is about? creating through expectation (and the conditioned expectation of the body)?
i'm an professional artist and i know that one can only create viable art through vision and focus. I see this creative process as a microcosm of the way one creates reality.
i have done exercises where i have 'created my day' as talked of in the film, and very strange coincidences would collaberate in my life and give me specific circumstances which i focused on and visualized before-hand, things so specific that i couldn't deny that they were somehow a direct manifestation of my vision and focus. isn't that how olympians do what seems to be impossible to the rest of us? isn't that how cities are forged?-- all things start as an idea, all things around us are thought materialized, someone's dream made concrete.
again and again we see that the poets and visionary dreamers often put theories forward that are then substantiated by science years later. i happen to like the theories put forth in this movie, because they work for me, i find that they are useful and pragmatic. that is all the 'scientific experimentation' i need. hard evidence, in the form that i have seen my vision take specific form, not just in my art, but also in my life.
and so what if these theories also smack of the fanciful? i'm sure that many people thought that the young man with uncombed hair and socks that didn't match was also fanciful when he thought of e=mc2 before he substantiated his vision with data. many scientists come up with visionary theories, and then must go back and back them up.
besides, science is mostly theory in some very real way, because whenever you observe something you change it-- so what are scientists really observing anyway?? to dissect something you have to kill it. art and poetry have something very real to teach us about embracing the mysterious, rather than cutting something apart in order to 'figure it out' to death, a la scientific practice.
besides, it's much more fun to think about the possibile, if only as an exercise in imagination and hope. and if this movie empowers people to adjust their thinking and stop being slaves to their cells' addictions to stress, sex, and substance abuse-- if this movie encourages people to get beyond conventional thinking and gets people thinking outside the box-- then i don't give a shit if the science if as thin as a coat of cheap paint-- at least it's something dynamic and creates a ripple effect. it's so funny when people make fun of 'self help' or things that 'empower' because they think it's not cool to try to improve yourself, or open yourself up to new thoughts and ideas-- doesn't it occur to the nay-sayers, that if something's helping someone function more dynamically then maybe that's a good thing???? if something works and it helps me, then i'll use it.
RE: Hard core new age propaganda reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 26, 2004 8:43 AM
New age Bah, dont mix science and new age, just because this info does not represent your ideology. Truth is Truth before you decided what it was! Or perhaps 1+1 may have not always have been 2? Go figure!
Dogmatic Science is as bad as Dogmatic Religion! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 26, 2004 9:34 AM
Yes you may be correct here mainly in theory. One thing to keep in mind is that Truth does not have to be proved for it to have been so and to continue to be so {discovered or not}. 1+1 equaled 2 before anyone thought to represent that fact. Science can eventually validate some truths, but not all. Science is a tool not the yard stick for truth. No one ever scientifically or directly measured Love, a mind or even Gravity emperically. At most any evidence for somethings is simply indirect. Scientists have just as much faith in the existence of gravity for instance as religous zelots have in ideas of GOD.
Faith is Faith however it describes the data\experience.
Dogmatic Science is as bad as Dogmatic Religion!
Who is Holyer then whom? Who honors the truth more, and what in fact is Truth. If its not tangible, or externally measurable does it not exit? There is something very presumptuous about this questions built in assumptions and all questions posed like it.
It presupposes objective seperation of knower from known. And that is an ideological faith. A potential position one merely follows. Also an unproven position for the analy aware. Such views are a mere useful convention for the expression of the source in the most universaly understood format available for what ever scenario you find yourself in.
Religion is a metaphysical interpretation of experience, Science is physical one. They both are correlated and complimtary and exist interms of a tangled hierarcy not an orderd one. What gives rise to what, is in fact the wrong question to be asking! It has an erroneous assumption built in that has never be demonstrated in truth, neither subjectively nor objectively. But we wont point that out, just go from there as in a mere logical equation. The initial state of the system must be regarded, but since we can't measure every fact externally in some tangible way, then isnt there something wrong with the erroneous expectation of absolute objective proof, the holy grail of classical Science. This hope is exactly that, a presumptuous faith no more or no less valuable then any other championed ideology.
These old out moded top town theories need to give way and be complimented buy fresh systemic bottom up theories. The earth can be perceived factually as both round and or flat. It in fact has never been only either, but we sure have a but load of ideologies that make such assumptions. And you know what they say about those. Assumptions that is!
NOT: Hard core new age propaganda reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 27, 2004 4:12 PM
This stuff obviously flies in the face of modern accepted beliefs. Science is also based largly upon beliefs. So which beliefs are the most worth having? This is the sort of film that tries to give some direction in that, since you are going to belive something, even if you think your scientific and only deal with the straight truth. An arrogant position to be sure, but none the less a common one!
yes indeed reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 29, 2004 5:24 PM
I haven't seen the movie, and I don't realy want to now after reading some of the above.
The paradox is impossible for the human mind to comprehend, but the soul comes in direct conscious contact with it.
Whether you are religious, scientific, or both, weeing this film would probably do lots of good for many people. We must remember the original questions of humanity.
Life is Your Perception. reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 30, 2004 6:42 PM
AMAZING Psychology.
This movie is the Greatest movie i've ever seen.
Whether it is science or religion you're into, This explains it all.
Becuase after all Shouldnt science and religion be the same thing at the end? All logical. And what shows this the best? True Quantum Physics.
This movie is for ANYONE and EVERYONE With an Open mind.
Becuase it is Truley The Truth.
These Scientist, do they not? Know Best.
RE: The Ego of Experience reply
Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on August 31, 2004 12:38 PM
Stuart Wilde said that! God I'm good at trivia :)
the good and the bad about propoganda reply
Posted by donealittledigging (mydeal_2@hotmail.com) on August 31, 2004 6:30 PM
I have read all of the comments. Given the various perspectives I am impressed with the emotion and feelings and questions that have been raised. Though there was some metion of propoganda I did not see it result in an examination. So, I have done as my handle suggests and would not mind hearing comments privatly from those who find my veiwpoint of interest and would care to comment on it.
The film was billed as a documentary at the theater I saw it at. There was a high school science teacher who brought his class. There were persons outside of the theater handing out flyers for workshops where one could learn the amazing powers of their minds.
A ranage of causalities from the film being made. I was not able to find out who the flyer passers were, they dissapeared upon me asking some questions. I quess their minds could not handle or they did not want to address the simple who, how, and whys of my questions.
WHen I go to see a documentary, I go on the basis that it is a film covering real events. This movie was certainly not doing so. This is a number one problem for me. It is a false premise from the get go. Sure, it might have been a bit entertaining if I had been in the mood to be entertained. Still even after a few min. I tried to change my mind that I was looking at a creative story. But it kept changing back and forth attempting to be at one moment a scientific reality and the next a fantasy. Then I was cvonstantly trying to figure out who was who, I did recognize a few of the players though. Only at the end when the credits were given and I saw "ramtha" did it ring a bel and I did a little digging. It did not take me long to discover that several of the experts though not credited with being handpicked teachers in this ramthas school were the ones who had been given most of the camera and voice time. I wondered why, Then in the bio of one of the film makers it said he had been a student of the zen master rama, I e a gentleman who before he committed suicide was also known as fredric lenz and accused by many of being a manipulative , abusive cult leader. The other film makers also turned out to be students of this ramthas school. The vision that one creates their own reality is also a foundation in the teachings of this school. so, it begins to look like a duck, smell like a duck and quack also. Speaking of Quacks, this school besides teaching this which is only the hook into a much darker reality filled with a world of govenment conspiricies and aliens among us, survivalism so that the students can recreated and repopulate the world after the apocoypse.
You may think if I had known that up front I wouldn't have gone to see the film....on the contrary, it would have made it a much more interesting viewing for me because of its propoganda value. Go see it by all means, do a little digging on your own. There is nothing better the a good peice of propaganda to educate ones self. As far as the ideas...read a book, go to the library, I know this is getting more difficult in this aqge of instant gratification, otherwise, continue to not pull the curtain back from the wizard of oz...perhaps toto did have a higher state of conciousness.
claptrap reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 3, 2004 8:29 PM
This movie is the worst thing I have ever seen in my life. If you are over 35 and looking for hope, or are already a yoga ditz like the blonde room mate in the movie you will like this movie. But it barely dwells on any quantum physics, jumps to elementary biology, and makes its main point on the accounts of a Japanese photographer (NOT a degreed scientist) whose experiments have NEVER been reproduced. All of the ideas in this movie that were worth talking about CANNOT excuse the bullshit in it. It's sad that it takes a cult to fund a movie of this type that has any chance of getting people to take notice.
RE: claptrap reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 13, 2004 1:11 PM
I don't feel that a couple of unproven, hard to swallow points, ruin the presentation of this film anymore than scientists current, crazy theories struggling to explain the first singularity, dark matter, etc. spoil my use of science to help me comprehend this mystery we live in.
My original reason for searching this site was to find out specifically what was the "black box" photography / art employed in the affected water scene. Do any of you know more about it so that I might research it a little? I hesitate to even ask if there is anything to the natives not ?seeing? the ships?but what the heck!
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 16, 2004 11:21 AM
Many spiritual paths have taught much of what is in this film. Here we see how quantum physics supports these teachings. One reviewer wrote: "Yes, interesting at every turn, you'll find yourself immersed in the picture, dare I say -- thinking. So if you like a picture that makes you think -- or -- you need a picture that makes you think -- or -- you are an easily irritated, unhappy person -- go see this film."
Unfortunately, I guess it didn't help YOU out. (Sad.)
what the bleep do we know reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 16, 2004 3:45 PM
Do you know all 3 credited directors of "What the Bleep Do We Know" are involved in Ramtha's School of Enlightenment? Not only is "Ramtha" in the movie, but 2 other speakers in the movie are part of the school as well. Joe Dispenza and Miceal Ledwith are long time teachers, and lectures for the school. This isn't just a bad movie, but it's a piece of propaganda for what has been labeled a cult.
quantum reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 17, 2004 8:28 AM
Excellent, excellent, excellent, the truth comes slowly but it'll surely come.
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 19, 2004 12:24 AM
I agree!!! Made in such a way, I felt it was the only movie to be Beautifully designed and incredibly powerful, to show us a mirror of wasted and powerless beings... and still get a rating of 10+!!!
water and sail boat questions reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 22, 2004 2:37 PM
Please explain the posters that were being displayed and discussed in the movie about the distilled water. The Chi of Love looked like a snowflake, as did Thank You, etc. They said that distilled water was used...how much water was used, and with the power of positive thought the water changed..was this viewed under an electron microscope, or seen by the naked eye? I want to know and understand more.
I also didn't understand why the native Indians, couldn't see Columbus's ships sailing. Even though they never saw ships before....they saw trees and probably made rafts out of the trees, so they understood that things can float on water....why didn't they see the boats??
RE: re: it is a rabbit hole reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 23, 2004 8:27 PM
TALK ABOUT PISSY ATTITUDE.
RE: The Ego of Experience reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 23, 2004 8:44 PM
WHY DID YOU SHORTEN WTBDWK?
RE: rabbit hole revisited reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 23, 2004 8:51 PM
I'M IMPRESSED, IF YOU WEREN'T A SCIENTIST YOU COULD BE A LAWYER.
what the bleep reply
Posted by Zonian (zonianx3@earthlink.net) on September 27, 2004 8:08 PM
One of my clients, struggling for survival in a world of anguish and unsufferable pain, saw this movie and had a diagnosable hypomanic experience. Nevertheless he begged me to see it, and in an effort to respect the integrity of his struggle, I went. But only with some reservations, since I was aware of the connections to the Ramtha cult, which made me highly suspicious of any ostensible scientific objectivity in the material. Watching the entertaining visuals and graphics, it made me think about the caveat about impressionable naifs who are swayed by signs and wonders, those who seek the truth of human nature and transcendent identity in colorful patterns and mind bending illusions. Whatever the scientific credibility of the various commentators, they lose respect when associated with a pathologic example of pseudo religious narcissistic grandiosity such as JZ Knight...An individual with as serious a distortion of Essence as has ever clouded the minds of sincere seekers in any age, new or otherwise. As for the film itself, there is nothing in this pastiche of concepts which isn't already covered, with much greater objectivity, in The Dancing Wu Li Masters, or in The Tao of Physics...and many other sincere and serious works of that caliber...But our pseudoshaman Ramtha would have us all associate these profundities with her, and then attempt to manipulate us into believing that she is the One who Awakens us to the ships. It is a sad and seriously deceitful process by which great evil attempts to use partial truth to distort and manipulate the minds of the credulous and easily impressed -- even if sincere -- seekers of a Reality which actually does exist, and which will exist long after Ramtha and her cohorts have been consigned to the nonexistence from which her narcissism springs.
RE: about reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 9:15 PM
What you are referring to is called channeling. Ramtha is obviously dead and not 35,000 years old. There have been many reports of the dead (or more acurately enlightened) folk speaking through the living. Seth is another example of this. How exactly do you think the Bible was written? Do you actually believe that Moses actually heard "God's" voice with his ears. No, they were communicating internally. We all have the potential for this and the enlightened are tring to show us the path. Yes, of course they didn't put this into the movie because people are terrified. Anything heard outside of the box will only lead to ridicule and more unnessessary persecution. This movie only covers the beginning of truth and look at the controversy it has caused.
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 10:24 PM
Well you obviously missed the entire point of the movie. They go on and on to try and explain the phemonemon that exists within the quauntum world. And from what I understand most quantum physicists agree. I am sure your reaction is common amoung ignorant conservatives who have seen this flim. Our subconcious really can't tell the difference from what we take in with our eyes and what we see with our minds eye because they are the same thing. We don't see with our eyes we see with our brains. And the proof is in our dreams not PET scans. Can you tell when your dreaming? Yes, sometimes you can. But only when you experiance something sureal that you know can not be real do you realize that you are actually lying down sleeping immersed in your imagination. And it is not only sight that your mind can not tell the difference but all of your sences as well. (Come on man, Didn't you see the Matrix???) They didn't make this stuff up, its been known for years. But I guess you didn't know that considering you ARE ignorant. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant, however it does tend to make you out to be a fool when you voice your uneducated opinion. I realise that you live in a concrete world, but there is no need to belittle everyone who wish to live up to their true potential. Let me ask you this. Has anything extraordinary ever happend in your life. From your post I've would say not. I hope you realize that the reason is entirly your own fault. They never said that reality doesn't exist or that it is fabricated by us. What they did say is that all possibilities exist until there is an observer. This gives rise to the theroy that the observer has influence on what it is observing. From my experiance I do not find this very hard to believe and I'm sure many others have had similar experiances. The reason why you may have not is because you don't believe that it is possible. If you don't believe it is possible to have influence on the environment then your life will be very predictible.
As for your last comment, which I might add was extremly unnessessary. I serouisly doubt the creators of this flim were tring to make a quick buck. The 'self-help blather' as you call it, bring forward serious issues everybody faces. We all have addictions and we all are self-conscious about our selves. People are unhappy and turn to religion for answers. Unfortuatly most religions really only make us feel worst about ourselves. They were tring to open peoples minds and get them to think. Unfortuatly some peoples minds are welded shut. By the way it is human nature to try to explain the unknown, unfortuatly modern religion has been putting a damper on our efforts for centuries. Do you realise that you condridicted yourself in the second paragraph of your post? A huge part of society has already accepted that there isn't a "uber-being a with plan and reason..." It would seem that you are afraid of the "mysterious" as you call it, and wish to replace it with "it's definatly not what they said." What exactly is credible? that the particles inside atoms defy the laws of physics ? or that there is validity to there claims. Besides all that The very first point they made in the movies was that man has always tried to explain the unknown and has many times been wrong, well my friend, this entire movie is a perfect example of this. There may be a discovery or breakthrough that discredits the entire movie or proves it to be true, but they covered they're bases, making the flim enitrely credible. And considering the TRUE point of the movie was to get people to think and help people to live better and to have more fullfilling lives, I'd say it was a complete success. In the future please keep you negative critisism to yourself. There really is no need to shoot down the filmmakers simply because you do not agree with there ideas. Because a lot more people don';t agree with yours and they definatly do not want to read them esp since you only proved to these readers that you're, well, ignorant.
RE: what the bleep reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 10:31 PM
She didn't portray herself in this way in the film. So whatever quams you seem to have with this JZ Knight are aparently personal. She wasn't the center of the moive as you seem to believe. And The works you mention were not mainstream flims, and they would never reach the public as movies in the theatre do.
RE: what the bleep do we know reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 10:39 PM
Its been labled a cult by the ignorant. People like you who convey messages to others that they do not fully understand in the first place. They do not even begin to mention the teaching from the school of enlightenment of Ramtha. By the way Ramtha is not in the movie. He died ages ago. If you didn;t liek the movie then don't watch it, what can I say. Except that it obviously had an effect on you since you felt the need to post on this site. By the way considering the definition of a cult I would in no way label that school as one. They don't hurt anyone and nither did this movie
RE: Bleep and MindWalk reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 10:45 PM
well, the water crystals are real look it up.
RE: claptrap reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 10:47 PM
Thats not rue his finding have been reproduced. Go look it up.
RE: Not a new ager' reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 10:55 PM
Excellent, I think you are the only person who actually got the point of the moive. It doesn't matter what they said. Obviuosly there in no proff to thief claims. Just simply ideas. The importance of this film is the way they try to influence people to live positive lives. And I do not see any propoganda in this movies at all. To say so is rediculas.
RE: What The Bleep - not a new idea reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 11:04 PM
well i assume you are not religious. Nither am I although I do believe that the Bible is a peice of history, or at least the origial teaching were, who knows how they botched it up over the years through translations. But Jesus walked on water and many other men did astonishing thigs long ago. This explains them . The reason no one can walk on water is because its really, really hard, not immpossible. People have reached higher consciousness but by that time they are either dead or in a better place. I know if I was in enlightenment I wouldn't stick around so I can do cheap parlor tricks just for your satisfaction. If you really want proof, you should try walking out of a 5th story window, trust me you won't fall. If you believe...
RE: rabbit hole revisited reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 28, 2004 11:10 PM
What the hell are you talking about. I never heard of these devices that save gas mileage on cars. And it really is a horrible example anyway, who the hell would think that something you could instal yourself would save gas mileage, and if it was that ealy to install why would the car manufactuer have already put it in. Anyway if you really want to save gas, walk!
there is hope reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 29, 2004 6:45 AM
I have always felt that the film industry has played a huge role in shaping our mind.
I have enjoyed movies at the theater, video, dvd.
I have studied many avenues of "WHO I AM" in semminars, books, lectures and personal experiences.
BUT NEVER has a movie like What the bleep? been made, that give the soul,and mind gradification in one. Thanks Samual G
RE: there is hope reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 29, 2004 6:52 AM
you right, we need to be stretch and rapped on the mind. It great to watch a movie and be taken away to a place we dare to go. Who goes down the rabbit hole?
Are_Science_and_Christianity_Compatible reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 29, 2004 10:52 AM
Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Psalm 19:1 (NKJV)
Most of us, at one time or another, have looked in wonder at the night sky on a clear night when the glory of the stars glistened like diamonds. What a beautiful expanse it is! And we probably found ourselves thinking about the significant questions such a sight provokes. Where did it all come from? How big is the universe? How did God create such a wonderful and awesome thing? Perhaps you even wondered whether God created it all.
For thinking people pondering Christianity, the question of whether science and Christianity are compatible is an important one. Unless you have had your head in the sand, you know that many discount the validity of Christian faith and especially the veracity of the Biblical record by appealing to science. So it seems only fair to look at the claims of science and the claims of the Bible and try to make some sense of them. Even for those of us who have settled on Christianity as the truth, we need to know more.
What is Science?
Just what is science anyway? Do we understand the place it should hold? Have we elevated science to a status it should not have? Wilfred Sellers, who was a professor of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, has said, "Science is the measure of all things. Of those things that are true and real, that they are real, and of those things that are unreal and false, that they are unreal and false. Science is the end all, be all, and do all of modern knowledge." With comments like these, it should be obvious that we are living in an age dominated by the idea that science holds the keys to understanding the truth of not only the material universe, but life itself.
This view of science is called "scientism," the belief that only is something can be tested by science is it true. Those who hold such a position think that everything else, such as philosophy and religion, are matters for conjecture, merely subjective issues where one opinion is as good as another. We see this view expressed all around us. People say things like, "Well, that may be true for you, and if it works for you, fine. But I believe . . . ." You do not see that sort of thing going on in a laboratory. If the professor said, "There is hydrochloric acid in that beaker, be careful," no one would say, "Now doc, that may be hydrochloric acid to you, but its lemonade to me. Don?t put you ideas of truth on me." It is assumed by most that science is true and other things are not as exact. But that, as I hope to show you, is a dubious assumption.
Scientism, you see, is not science, it is a philosophy about science. It elevates science from a tool of inquiry to the status of absolute truth. The irony of scientism is that true science is built on certain philosophical assumptions outside of science without which science could not function. Science assumes that there is objective truth which can be discovered. It assumes objective values, like reporting data fairly and honestly. It assumes that the world is rationally orderable and that the human mind and sensory faculties are reliable. Science could not function without these and other philosophical suppositions, so scientism is essentially self-refuting. To say only science is true is like saying that there are no true statements, or saying, "I do not exist."
True Science
True science is a tool of inquiry. It deals with what can be discovered and tested by what we call the scientific method. As such, it deals with what is observable, quantifiable, repeatable, as it tries to discover the facts. It should go where the facts lead without bias and predetermined outcomes. When it makes conclusions that are no testable or engages in speculation or advances theories, they should be treated as theories and not as proven facts. It is important to distinguish the two. Many times we do not.
Here is where the supposed contradictions between science and Christianity, or the Biblical account of creation lie. For many, this is the key sticking point. Did God really create all things as the Bible said in Genesis, or did everything come about by so-called "natural" processes? Did we evolve from a common life form, as Darwin postulated in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859, or did God form and create man by a supernatural act?
Let?s examine some of the theories of the origin of the universe and of life on planet earth. As we do, we must understand that some scientists have a definite bias against any belief in a supernatural creator. Dr. George Wald, Nobel prize winning Biochemist from Harvard, commenting on the impossibility of life spontaneously arising from non-life, said, "That leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. But we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds. Therefore, we choose to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance." We must realize from the outset that some are like those described in Romans. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools . . . . They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator . . . . . since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God . . ." (1:22,25,28). Some choose to reject the possibility of God.
The Odds for Evolution
With that in mind, let?s look at the odds for evolution. Darwin?s theory had swept up almost every naturalist in North America within twenty years of the publication of his book The Origin of Species. Darwin had simply built upon the presuppositions of Immanuel Kant, who postulated that the universe was infinitely old, infinitely large, and static (that the conditions for life to exist are always present). With such a universe, there was an infinite time in which to throw the dice of chance, and with enough throws of the dice of chance, even highly complex things could be made, perhaps even something as highly complex as a German philosopher. Darwin assumed as much in his theory of life evolving over a vast amount of time.
But Darwin?s theory has run into some trouble with the scientific community. Not only has there been no transitional forms of species evolving into new species, most scientists now believe that the universe is not infinitely old. With the theory of the Big Bang (that the universe began with an explosion and has been expanding outward since that moment) comes the realization that the universe had a beginning, that it is not infinitely old. If there is a beginning, there must be a Beginner.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, who was the head of the NASA/Goddard Space Institute, said, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story (big bang) ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Furthermore, if there is not an infinite amount of time, there is simply not enough time for even simple things to be accounted for by random chance. Henry Morris gives an interesting scenario in his book The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth:
Consider the possible number of different ways 200 parts could be aligned together. . . .
This is a tremendously large number. It can be shown to be approximately 10375, that is, a number written as "one" followed by 375 "zeros". Therefore, the correct alignment of the 200 parts has only one chance out of 10375 of being selected on the first trial.
Suppose a new trial can be made every second. In all of supposed astronomic time . . . there have only been 1018 seconds, so the chance that the correct alignment might be obtained once in the 10 billion years would only be one out of 10(375-18), or 1 in 10357. This is still practically zero.
Suppose that we try to improve the chances by arranging to have a large number of sets of the 200 parts, all being tried simultaneously. Suppose that each part is only the size of an electron . . . . Then, let us fill the entire universe (of radius 5 billion light-years) with solidly-packed sets of electrons. It can be shown that the whole universe could only contain, at the most, 10130 such sets of 200 solidly-packed electrons. Thus, we now are trying to visualize 10130 sets of 200 parts each., and trying to arrange only one set into the correct alignment by chance, just once in ten billion years, anywhere in the universe.
Suppose also that we invent a machine capable of making different trials every second, on every one of the 10130 sets. . . . . This would permit a total of . . . 10166 trials to be made.
Still, after all this, the chance that one of these 10166 trials would give the right result and make the system work is only . . . 1 in 10209. In other words, the idea that a system of 200 parts could be arranged by chance into the correct order is absolutely absurd!
Most systems, of course, including all living organisms, are far more complex than a mere 200 parts. The cerebral cortex in the human brain, for example, contains over 10 billion cells, all arranged in proper order, and each of these cells is itself infinitely complex!
It seems that there isn?t enough time to throw the dice of chance in order to create order from chaos. And when you couple that with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the law of entropy, which states that the universe is running down, or that things tend toward disorder, then evolution has a big problem. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is evident all around us. If we saw a pile of bricks in a field, we might say that the pile had once been a house, but we would not say that, without human intervention, it would one day become a house. Bricks do not randomly assemble themselves into a house, although over time the house may disintegrated into a pile of bricks.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics really gives support for the argument that there must have been a Designer for a universe with so much complexity and order.
The Case for Creation
Let me tell you the story of my watch. One day there was a fellow walking down the road and he kicked together a few slivers of metal. Over the course of time, other people came down this road and also kicked together various other elements. As time passed and more people came, the watch began to take shape. It formed a face, and hands, and one day just started running. Then I came down that road and picked it up, and its been working ever since! Do you believe the story of my watch? If you do not believe the story of my watch, how can you believe the story of the random evolution of the human eye? It seems to me that it takes more faith to believe in evolution or that life could form by accident than it takes to believe that there was an intelligence behind it all. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Carl Sagan is involved in an organization called SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Perhaps they have a government grant to do this. Although I believe it was Senator Proxmire who suggested that the government could better spend its money looking for intelligent life in Washington, D.C. than in outer space. In any event, Sagan and Company are listening to the universe with an ear to hear any form of "communication" which has a semblance of order and organization about it. They reason that even if they do not understand the message, if it is ordered in any way it must come from an intelligence, because order implies intelligence. I agree. What a shame they can?t see how this logic of theirs applies to life on earth.
God has His fingerprints all over the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. What we see when we gaze at the night sky or a little baby is, in my mind, incredible proof of a powerful Designer-Creator.
And when we turn to the Biblical account of creation, the biggest hurdle is the first four words of Genesis, "In the beginning God . . ." And the fourth word is the one that matters. You see, if you can get God into the picture, then the rest is easy. And the scientific evidence is there for the existence of God.
Astronomer George Greenstein, in his book The Symbiotic Universe, said, "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency ? or, rather, Agency ? must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Vera Kistiakowsky, past president of the Association of Women in Science and MIT physicist, said, "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Allan Sandage, winner of the Crafoord prize in astronomy (much like the Nobel prize), commented, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Robert Griffiths, Heinemann prize winner in mathematical physics, remarked, "If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn?t much use." The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.
If God is in the equation then the details can be worked out later. One young boy asked his father whether he believed there was life on other planets. The father said, "No, son, I don?t believe there is." The boy said, "Then why did God go to all the trouble to created them all?" The father replied, "What trouble?" You see, when you bring an almighty God into the picture, the equation changes.
The Real Question
We will not answer all the questions of science or of the Bible here now. But the real question is whether you have enough evidence to believe in a Creator who brought order out of chaos, and who has a design, not only for the universe, but also for your life? You see, we didn?t come from nothing and are not going back to nothing, not in the sense that there is nothing behind the universe. Because there is Someone behind it all, you have meaning ? your life counts. If there was no God, and everything evolved from the elements, and no life after death, then life would have no real meaning. There would be no basis for morality, no reason you shouldn?t go out and kill someone, no value in human existence. And I believe it is because we, as a culture, have chosen to remove God from our lives that we see the moral decay in our society.
The Bible begins with God because He is the place to begin. Whether it is the birth of the universe, the formation of planet earth, the creation of man, or the new creation of your life, He is the place to start.
Perhaps all of your questions about the universe and about God are not yet answered. Let me challenge you to put the scientific method into action concerning God. The best way you can verify the existence of God is to allow Him to come into your life. You can experience Him for yourself by coming to Jesus Christ and surrendering your life to Him. The Bible teaches that we have all sinned and that is the reason we have such a hard time with God. We are blinded to the truth and need the blindfold removed. Only as we surrender to Christ can the blindfold come off. We stand condemned by our sinful life, but Jesus came to this earth to make a way for us to return to God. He died on the Cross, taking the penalty for your sin and mine, so that we could be made right with God. If you will allow Him to move into your life, He will reveal Himself to you in ways that you can personally experience. You can know Him for yourself. Ask Him to forgive your sins and come into your life right now.
What the Bleep reply
Posted by Zonian (zonianx3@earthlink.net) on September 29, 2004 11:23 AM
This film is produced by adherents of JZ Knight, who has built a highly lucrative empire by disseminating the messages of a disembodied 35,000 year old warrior from Atlantis whom she calls Ramtha. Central to the Ramtha cult is the belief that God does not exist, except in the minds of the untaught, who once becoming enlightened, will understand that they themselves are, in fact, God. And from whence comes this enlightenment? Only from Ramtha, the Avatar of whom, JZ Knight, is now cleverly using the powerful technologies of film and video to spread her deceptions. The fact that she masks her motives by associating herself with generally very wise and accomplished experts in quantum physics and consciousness studies in the film, is actually a further extension of techniques she has perfected, over the past 22 years, at her school in Yelm, Washington, where she holds regular, and expensive, "Consciousness and Enlightenment" training for her followers. Regarding the content of the film, it is difficult to dispute that many of the concepts represent important new developments in science and psychology, some of which may be substantiated through rigorous analytical experimentation. However, other elements are pure conjecture, presented as fact and associated with credible expert testimony in a way that distracts valid objective criticism and engenders confusion. By insinuating her not very subtle message amidst such stimulating and sometimes witty content, JZ Knight as Ramtha very astutely achieves a subliminal connection with some highly accomplished and respectable scientists and philosophers, some of whom very likely are completely unaware of the dogmatic agenda of the producers. Now, all of that said, the actual style and design of the film, as well as its effort to reach a new audience of intelligent and thoughtful viewers hungry for something beyond the ordinary tripe of most Hollywood product, is commendable. But people must be aware that there is more to this phenomenon than meets the uncritical eye...We should all welcome the constantly flowing emergence of Truth, as our conceptual capacities for receiving and understanding evolve. But we must be aware that just because the message is new or entertaining, doesn?t mean it?s True?
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 29, 2004 11:24 AM
You see....your opinion is just that. "An uncaring Universe" is obviously your own philosophical POV.
what the bleep do we know? reply
Posted by Huntingto (don't know) on September 29, 2004 4:42 PM
What I had difficulty with is the discrepancy between being 'spiritually enlightened' and making a mockery of a whole ethnic group and their religion, as well as using overweight people as prop for ridicule. IMO, spiritually advanced people do not behave that way. Also the belief that we are responsible for everything that happens to us is harmful and also unproven. One final note: one of the posts of Sept. 29 referred to Carl Sagan as if he were still alive. He is deceased and one wonders whether the search for intelligent life in the universe that he fostered might one day discover him! The irony, of course, is that Sagan did not believe in an afterlife. So if this search does find him, it is possible he will just say, "Never mind."
RE: what the bleep do we know? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 29, 2004 6:00 PM
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is that the tree does not exist until someone creates the tree by experiencing it.
WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 30, 2004 2:41 PM
I was raised in Christian Science, & we had to say the Scientific Statement of Being each week in Sunday School. The two lines that stick in my mind are the following: Spirit is the real and eternal, matter is the unreal and temporal. What I had trouble understanding was UNREAL. When I married my husband, I took my instant daughter to the Science of Mind Church (aka Religious Science); & since they needed a Sunday School Teacher, I had to take a year of Religious Science to qualify as a teacher. The best thing that I learned from my teacher was when he compared the human mind to a slide projector. Most people keep tearing down the screen & getting the same picture; but in order to get a different picture, the slide has to be changed. I was only able to keep my instant daughter in the Sunday School for two years; & after losing a five-day-old daughter, a social worker advised me to join a Temple Sisterhood for companionship, which is what brought me into the Jewish community and back to my roots. After I got breast cancer, I went back to the Religious Science Church; and now I know what Mary Baker Eddy meant by UNREAL. Religious Science teaches that the real self, which leads you in the right direction (if you let it) is the spiritual self (not the unreal & temporal part of you). Since my father was killed in WWII as a Gay Jewish American War Hero, the photo of the Star that marked his grave in Okinawa led me (by having faith in the higher power within me) to the Jewish War Vets; and they will help me write my book based on the 91 letters and 34 post cards that my father wrote to my mother while he took care of the wounded in Iceland, the Guadalcanal, & Okinawa (I know that my book will be a best seller because the gay community need a War Hero).
Proud daughter of a tall, dark, & handsome Gay Jewish American War Hero
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by Rex Smith (rexeblt@msn.com) on October 2, 2004 3:25 AM
The many of us (still small in number relative to the whole) who are endeavoring the study of reality as a self creation, enjoy this more maximum exposure as in the film What The Bleep... or so I am told about the film, since I have not yet seen it. This comment smarts of what I contend with on a daily basis that what is established and regurgitated mostly academically is "truth" actually "law" imposed by lets say the mentality not able to withstand the assault of "imbalancing" new information.
Drug Innuendo reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 5, 2004 10:00 PM
I wish you had not placed this movie outside of the pale by implying a connection to drug use and drug culture. I do not smoke pot and yet I found the movie to be inspiring and even life changing. This is a movie that I hope everyone will see.
Sincerely,
Diana Austin
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 10, 2004 10:02 PM
What is... really IS
Physics have been searching for the Theory of Everything for some time now, when this simple sentence encapsulates what the physics will find if or when they find their theory...
enlightnment... be aware
ive never walked out of a movie before reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 11, 2004 2:31 PM
until i saw this one. if you actually let this movie affect you, please, i beg you to go read some actual science material. i went to see this movie with 2 neuroscientists and they thought it was complete garbage. they said that it ignored and watered down everything to such a degree that it was nauseating.
the part with the native american (who was clearly a white actor) pointing into the distance had me in stitches. the quality of this movie reminded me of one of those really crappy movies you see in science classes with cool special effects that was created to teach the lowest common denominator.
I'm not saying that this denominator doesn't exist. it does, and these people will probably enjoy this movie because they haven't given that much thought to existential subjects. but if you have spent really any time studying buddhism/quantum physics/pretty much anything, this movie will be boring as watching some salted peanuts getting eaten by a fat dude with sideburns.
if you have graduated college and enjoy this movie, then god bless america.
RE: what the bleep do we know? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 11, 2004 2:33 PM
but what if the tree falls on a bug that had the enzymes to cure cancer and that bug was about to travel to america to be caught by scientists. tell my dying son that that bug does not exist.
RE: ive never walked out of a movie before reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 11, 2004 8:32 PM
The world is supposed to have people like you and the 2 neuroscientists your went to the movie with.Only because of it is called diverse.
But ofcourse there are other people who really love the movie and understand what the movie really talks about.
Gosh!! For a moment I thought after reading your review that I shouldn't watch it.I am glad I didn't follow the instincts.But man, listen,After watching it,I came straight to my computer and searched for exactly your post from Google and I am replying you.here is my message
"You were wrong." The Movie really makes everyone think and become educated.
RE: ive never walked out of a movie before reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 11, 2004 8:37 PM
And by the way u can call me "jomo".
I am kind of still wondering ,does "neuro-whatever" get to graduate here without even knowing these things.
Or were just playing ,acting like you didn't ever get once chance in your whole life to think about all these things.
RE: What the Bleep reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 11, 2004 8:45 PM
Now you ! where do get time to find all these super stories man.
Very simply did the movie talk about anything else other than trying so hard to make you think.
For me everything in the movie was already something I had thought about.Because I give so much time to myself.But to others like you it is trying to say "wake up and look for yourself".
But what can I say.Where ever there is Good,there must be bad too,right? So there is nothing wrong in you, not understanding the movie.
-Jomo.
RE: what the bleep do we know? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 12, 2004 12:00 AM
"If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is that the tree does not exist until someone creates the tree by experiencing it."
This is most intelligent illustraion for explaining what the movie had to say.But Instead of replying to the post saying "I didn't understand the movie" why did u want to show us that you are a stupid by saying some "bug" story.
I wasn't curious about your playfulness in posting replies but you could have been more careful.Cuz, the message that is being talked about and hence the movie as such is serious.
- jomo.
RE: ive never walked out of a movie before reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 12, 2004 12:14 PM
I just gave my bad review, because I thought the things that were coming out of these people's mouths weren't all that profound.
I'm not saying nobody should see this movie, its just that I'm suprised how many people haven't had the same reaction i did. There was little narrative structure and really very little substance.
It does raise some questions that are interesting, but it in no way gave me any insights that were more than just blind theories. My expectations for the movie were just too high. It didn't identify any of the people that were talking, making me believe that they were actors who had been given a script to read. This lends very little credibility to the movie.
I also walked out of the movie, so of course i missed half of it and perhaps it was going to get better. I got the feeling that the movie was attempting to indoctrinate things that were completely false into the audience, and the visuals were done in such a way that it reminded me of hypnosis.
1+1=2? Not always. reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 24, 2004 8:23 AM
I noticed that some people have appealed to what most consider a very basic mathematical fact, that 1+1=2. That is not always true. Certainly it is true in all number systems with base greater than 2 (including the common decimal, base 10). However, 1+1=10 in binary (base 2), and 1+1=0 in Z mod 2 (the group {0,1}).
RE: What The Bleep - not a new idea reply
Posted by synix (synixwithin@hotmail.com) on October 31, 2004 12:12 AM
Which scientist said that you could walk on water if you believe you can, I watched the movie, but missed that.
RE: Hard core new age propaganda reply
Posted by synix (synixwithin@hotmail.com) on October 31, 2004 12:31 AM
Essentially a propaganda and recruitment film??? Our local film reviewer basically said the same thing. I read his review and looked up Ramtha before I even saw the film, the result being that I entered the theatre biased to the negative, and left the theatre ( after paying attention ) to the film thinking "What the (bleep) was the reviewer watching", cause it sure couldn't have been the same movie. Now if I'd heard "Ramtha" repeated over and over and over, I'd see your point. Its all point of view, I suppose, but I went prepared for the recruitment and propaganda I'd read about, perhaps I'm too dense to see it, in which case it failed to hook me. I thought the movie was a lot of fun, though I find the spaniards ship story abit of a grasp for me.
RE: WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW reply
Posted by synix (synixwithin@hotmail.com) on October 31, 2004 1:10 AM
I found your post very touching. My Mothers side of the family were Christian Scientists, my Father and us kids were raised Anglican, years later he said that if he were able to do things different, he would have had us attend both churches. I give Christian Science the credit for the begining of my spiritual journey. The Christian Science monitor wrote a balanced review of the (bleep) movie, then again, the Monitor is a balanced publication.
Crowded theatre. reply
Posted by synix (synixwithin@hotmail.com) on October 31, 2004 1:34 AM
I can not speak for anywhere else, but here in Victoria B.C. the Roxy theatre was packed. I tend to be on the cynical side so when I heard others talking in the lineup about how this was not their first time to see this movie, I wondered what I was getting myself into, and after reading the negative review in the local paper I was prepared to walk out if I had to. Well the movie was alot of fun, it makes you think, it was entertaining, even funny, it wasn't boring or pedantic and it certainly wasn't conclusive. Only one poster on this board (so far) walked out, I think that says alot in favor of the movie.
RE: this really is a rabbit hole... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 31, 2004 11:30 AM
what a stupid remark
What the Bleep do we know? reply
Posted by OneTripAround (onetriparound.com) on November 1, 2004 11:18 AM
PEOPLE.....
THIS WAS A MOVIE! Someone's interpretation!Someone's opinions, someone's ideas.
I really don't care either way! It's not that big a deal. It's not worth fighting over and wasting my precious minutes of my life fighting over this. It was a dam movie! The Matrix was a movie... has everyone lost their minds???? These are MOVIES.... not reality... MOVIES.
BUT one thing: There is one assurance in this life....we will all die....
Are you that sure of what is on the other side? Science or not? Once you are there, you can't come back!
There is only ONE life, this is no rehearsal. Believe what you want, criticize others for their beliefs, put people down, if that is what this movie has helped initiate, then it is a NEGATIVE thing. Talk about it, debate it but don't tell people that they are stupid and they are ignorant and shut up .... how immature! It was a friggin movie....
LISTEN KIDS! we are all going to die.... PERIOD! That is something you know for sure....Then we will all know the truth! Scientists can tell you what they like, no one knows whats on the other side until you arrive there! Take your chances if you like!
Its not just a movie.. reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 1, 2004 6:54 PM
When science is confused with religion, we are all harmed.
Next thing you know, we'll have doctors trying to change reality with their thoughts...
Seriously, if you were sick, and a doctor had 1 hour of time to consult on your sickness. Would you want her to be thinking good thoughts aobut water for 30min, and then 30min doing medical testing? Or would you want 1 whole hour dedicated to falsifiable, tested, pragmatic medical testing?
This movie is harmful.
The Movie was not well done reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 6, 2004 12:07 PM
Putting aside my problems with some of the philosophical views put forth in the film, one has to admit that it was not a well done film. The "story" if that is what you want to call it was choppy and had no character development. The acting was subpar and the writing was bad.
The interviews were ok but most of the subjects seemed to be so interested in themselves and their own rather conventional theories that they were not interesting people to watch or listen to. The ideas put forth in this film are not that new. They basically boil down to the idea that we create our own reality and rules. That we are our own God. This idea has been around for a long time. Atomic theory has also influenced this for awhile. The only difference is that our technology has improved to the point where now we can see more of this for ourselves. That does not make the idea any more interesting or correct in and of itself.
I was disappointed with the film and it reminded me of movies that I used to watch in my grade school science classes. I would suggest in the future if one wants to explore this concept seriously then it requires a true documentary where one has a point and a counterpoint. Not a point and let me show you a lame skit that is suppose to be entertaining.
I enjoy documentaries and I especially enjoy exploring issues regarding philosophy and religion. This was not a serious exploration of either. I would place this in the same category of a propoganda piece. In the film they all claim to be thinking outside the box, but everyone in it echoes everyone else. The fact that one can have so much group think and not explore the contradiction in that is troubling. Hence, it was neither entertaining or thought provoking.
I'll admit I had a tough time staying awake through this film and wish I had not spent $4 on it. Nonetheless, if a similar endeavor is ever undertaken I hope it is done better because I'll probably check it out and spend money on it again.
Sincerely,
Jason Besler
Cedar Rapids, IA
RE: Quality of reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 27, 2004 4:30 PM
Rambo I was a pretty good movie.
Phil
Re: reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 1, 2004 11:28 AM
While I thought the film as a whole was a bit sloppy, i enjoyed it and thought it had a lot of interesting ideas that are worth pondering.
as for the water crystal experiment, etc., it is not the filmmakers responsibility to prove to you, reviewer, that the experiment is valid. if you are concerned that consciousness actually has an impact on the physical world, perhaps you could do your own research on. the movie was to plant the seed of curiousity, and it was successful in that for me. if you want solid evidence and cold heart facts, check out a book on quantum mechanics.
RE: Re: reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 4, 2004 5:58 PM
This film is a grand opportunity for us to consider the possibilities and then try them on for size... go see it, and then, think for yourself? See what works for you!
My experiences with mind sciences and spirituality over the past 25 years have proven to me over and over again, that what I ?think and feel? consistently attracts my life experiences; good, bad or indifferent. My job is not to convince anyone else of ?my truth? but is rather to experiment with the power and possibilities of the Mind. I just observe what works, refine my practice of it and expand my ability to create a better life for myself and for those around me.
Don?t take anybody?s word for it... Experiment and discover for yourself what works. CU
Sucked!!! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 26, 2004 7:03 PM
SUCKED!!!!!!
Recruiting for a cult reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 24, 2005 2:47 PM
When I first heard about the movie, I was intrigued. I looked it up on Google and found the main web site for the movie.
For some reason I thought "I bet this is being bankrolled by some religious cult". At first I suspected Scientology.
But then I did some more digging, and found a slew of articles that expose the film as being backed by Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Here are 2 links to some articles I found.
http://salon.com/ent/feature/2004/09/16/bleep/index_np.html
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000083.html
I don't like being manipulated. I'll probably rent it on Netflix just so I can say I've watched it before I tell everyone how stupid I'm sure it is.
Lest you think I'm dissing everyone in the film, Dr David Albert (Professor and Director of Philosophical Physics at Columbia university) has stated that his views were totally misrepresented in the film.
Seems "Ramtha" likes to abuse the trust of reputable scientists too.
HEY WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW?@!? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 21, 2005 11:52 AM
ENOUGH SAID
GREAT MOVIE: THIS IS WHY reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 21, 2005 12:39 PM
I bought this movie, and show it to people just to make them think about their own vulnerabities, because that is what it did for me.
Quantan Physics is fascinating, and when Joe Average like me is offered a new paradigm such as this to think about it is uplifting to pour it into my mundane modern existence.
Even us regular people cannot fit our mind around it comfortably, it is a great exploration.
However it is amazing how open this leaves us to falling under control of those who wish to mix their manipulatins in with the topic.
Obviously I have an opinion about JZ Knight and the two directors that are followers of hers; so do others.
Dr David Albert (author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience) stated that his views were misrepresented, and later the directors would not discuss this with him. Dr. Albert is one of many of those interviewed for the Movie that had such complaints. It's sad that these people were used as tools for someone's propaganda.
I have had four people now tell me this is the best movie they ever saw. Following that I tell them about the JZ Knight connection, and they are utterly embarrassed and feel as if they have been spiritually molested.
Quantam Theory is fascinating, but for those of us who feel a strike to our vulnerabilities in a piece of media such as this, well then maybe a closer self examination is what we really should be looking for...
Pizza, Friends, and Life. reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on March 27, 2005 2:02 PM
Yeah.....eat that chicken roll.....than drink Pepsi to wash it down. Smooth.
What the fuck? reply
Posted by pmapson (No Email) on April 5, 2005 10:46 PM
Just saw this "What the fuck do we know?" and after 20 minutes thought it should be "What the fuck are we talking about?".
How many ways can you say "perception is reality" and "you create your own reality", over and over for the whole movie?
I'm really writing about that creepy blonde woman J.Z. Knight or "Ramtha" or whatever. I had no idea who it was when I saw the film, as it kindly gives you no idea who these talking heads are or what their credentials are. After a while a began to think, "what an arrogant, self-important bitch".
Then later when I googled the film I found out she is some kind of cult leader! Surprise!
So there I had an unbiased reaction to this pompous cow, and it turns out the film makers are followers of hers, from what I read elsewhere.
Oh and the dancing jellybeans bits were just too ridiculous and went on too long.
Best to watch this film with a friend so you can heckle it a la "Mystery Science Theatre 3000", even though a couple of the speakers are interesting in between the Marlee Matlin twaddle and Ramtha pronouncements.
RE: you idiot reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 25, 2005 8:47 AM
Case in point: You...
RE: you idiot reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 2, 2005 6:45 PM
pmapson,
Go rent kill bill or something more your speed, and you won't have any problems. It sounds clear to me that your brain was unable to process what was being said. Even if you disagree with the content of this film, you should still walk away from it with your own "deep thoughts". Sounds like you were too busy looking for explosions, or sex scenes to really take the message in.
WTF....I've taken better looking shits reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 3, 2005 11:36 PM
This movie takes the term piece of shit to a new level. This is the kind of shit you get when "art fags get ass fucked by Hippy Jews". Fuck all of you that liked this movie.
Arrogant Yuppy Drivel reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 4, 2005 1:12 AM
What the bleep....= New Age Informercial Designed to Explain Failed Yuppy Existence
Director/Producer = Profiteer/Charlatan/Snake Oil Salesman/Cultist
Target Audience = Divorced White Man Haters, Guys who like Yanni, Morons that read self help books and 50 something Scumbags that live in the Past but desperately want to explain away their generation's misery brought about by excessive consumption, selfishness and greed
I'm pissed that I wasted my cash on renting this when I could have been sawing my balls off with a torn in half Budweiser can or Drinking Battery Acid and being thrown through a plate glass window!!!
Q: What the Bleep Do you really know?????
A: When the last Baby Boomer Dies Yuppy Drivel likes this will die with them.
Deaf People Are Funny reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 7, 2005 11:31 PM
I find it hilarious when deaf people try to talk like the Normals.
Marlee Matlin trying to choke out complete sentences, for me, approached the pinacle of hilarity, and was the only redeeming part of this bullshit movie.
scared psuedo-scientists reply
Posted by open to new ideas (No Email) on May 10, 2005 5:25 PM
If everyone thought like the majority of the narrow-minded idiots who post on here we would yet have to invent the wheel.
Funnier than the Haulocaust reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 12, 2005 10:24 PM
I was at the hospital laughing at cripples and then someone told me that if I wanted to see something more hilarious, there was a new comedy out about a deaf, dyke, hippy that buys drugs from a coon and gets all paranoid and freaked out. There's some faggots and hippies that interrupt the movie from time to time...babbling about gay ass hippy shit but then it's back to watching the retarded deaf mute get all fucked up and try and act like a normal person. This movie might have been a whole lot funnier then a van full of retards but made a whole lot less sense.
Thank you, Zonian reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 1, 2005 5:15 PM
Copied Zonian's entire post (beginning with "This film is produced by adherents of JZ Knight") to reply to my mother's "I just saw an amazing movie last night!" email she sent me. Thanks Zonian, good work, and my mother thanks you, too.
this is what i bleeping know reply
Posted by jumbijumbi (my_friend_insanity@yahoo.com) on September 1, 2005 12:11 AM
i had my review printed in my local paper:
This is not a movie. Nor is it a documentary. It is in fact a thinly disguised recruitment video for scientology and religion, poorly based on the following premise of quantum physics;
1. Quantum can forsee the future, therefore the future can be planned and altered.
2. Because quantum cannot be accurately described, and that which cannot be described but is known to exist is God, therefore God is now quantum.
3. I am a moron.
There is an attempt at a confused story to link these points together in an oil and water manner, (format plagiarised from BBC's "The Human Body",) which only helped alleviate my desire to slap the interviewees.
However, if you think CSI is even slightly factual, own a Ginsu knife, Blublockers, or anything that promised you rockhard abs with no actual physical exertion, this is the movie for you.
I bleeping well know that much.
which then received this. reply
Posted by jumbijumbi (my_friend_insanity@yahoo.com) on September 1, 2005 12:21 AM
hooray! i pissed someone off!
"With regard to [my] review of *bleep*, I was amazed your paper printed this review. Where did he get his scientology theory from?
The review was a rant of the writer's own prejudices, seldom touched on the film and was certainly not impartial. Why drag in CSI except as a fruitless attempt to emanate superiority?
The film was about quantum physics and that the possibilities considering this can open our minds to other ways of looking at life. The premise is that we may reach much the same conclusion through physics as we do through organised religion.
As one of the professors who contributed to the film said recently in Perth, this is not a cult film - it is a pointer to possibilities."
I thought it too easy to reply to someone this stupid, but thought I'd share the laughter.
Holy Fuckcunts and Hippy Kike Zoomers reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 11, 2005 2:58 AM
What the fuck was that? I just sat through an hour and a half of christian science drivel, only to find out that half the fucking film was being channeled by some fucking dead caveman.
Fuck you zoomer bitches. I'll be showing this class to my Introduction to Philosophy class for two reasons:
1. This is what happens when idiots try to understand science.
2. Cultists should be strung by their genitals.
RE: What the Bleep reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on September 17, 2005 11:48 PM
I was really heartbroken when just after watching this film, and leaving in a positive minded state, full of bright ideas, I logged into the web just to find out that the nice lady in the movie is a creepy millionaire cult leader, and that Dr. Emoto and his wonderful water pics have not really been scientifically credited. I hate it when everytime I think Ive found something worth believing I get dissapointed. Time after time.
movie reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 5, 2005 10:54 AM
i liked the deaf girl's tits
RE: What the bleep do we know! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 12, 2005 2:08 AM
If your the sort of person who is prepared to believe anything without proper evidence then it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is who gets to you first
Ive never posted a movie review ever..BUT THIS... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 27, 2005 12:39 PM
Ok, I was unfortunate enough to get a viewing of thise 35 car socio-emotional pileup on the highway of hopelesness last week on DVD. Though not even paying full on attention to it I spotted several unique things. For purposes of entertainment I will review this movie from two distinctlydifferent stand points.
First from that of a right thinking human being:
This movie is dangerous. Actually the movie isnt, the concepts depicted in it are. Its living proof that several things are happening. First off, our generation (im 25), is being slowly discovered as a mindless, easily manipulated gaggle of sheep, in desparate search of real meaning that they essentially painted a huge target on themselves. Targets for people like the producers of this movie to fire salvos of brain mending new age drivel at. Why? Because hey, even if i dont understand it, or agree with it, I can really get into it cuz' its trendy and it will make me so unique, just like everyone else. It also goes to show how many members of said generation are turning into mental and emotional accident scenes. The idea of creating ones own reality and much of the other stuff they preach in this Info-Propaganda-Mercial is litereally insane. But since the clever venue of "indie" film was selected to display it..they know damn well many will not question it cuz of the trendyness of it all. And they also know that since they picked an artistic venue such as indie films..that anyone that does question it will be labeled as a closed minded conformist. How convienient. Looking at life according to them will in fact lead you to living in a basment apartment in a low income neighiborhood because youre so called progressive ideas fit in as well with normal society (and i use normal sparingly here), about as well as an elephant through the cat door. Though as long as there are incense burning, yoga doing, tatoo getting, super spiritual head cases floating around amongst us, this WILL have an audience. Its also a great microchasam of how both religion and sicligion (science/relgigion hybrid) work. Be it conventional religion, or this crap, someone is getting wealthy off it. Regardless of its the billions a year bigger organized religions take in, or the few million this takes in..someone is getting rich. Religion is not started or created if there is no financial benifit or geographic benifit in the way of land or SOME benifit to the person who starts it. I dare anyone to dispute that. Religion is the ultimate as far as packaging, marketing, and selling NOTHING!. There is no overhead, there is no cost...its just sold processed prefabricated bullshit to control minds and wallets. This is no different. It just happens to be new and trendy. If i really sat down and put my mind to it I could start a cult in about 20 minutes. Demographic? Just get mailing lists from yoga studios, holistic care centers, hiking clubs, womens groups, male group therapy centers, and throw in the list of people on wellfare too. Make up a bunch of shit they dont understand and couldnt comprehend on their best day, and then offer hope by telling them they can create their own happiness. Ill even toss in a trip to the burning man crap out in the desert. Presto. Instant cult. These are all people desparate for hope and meaning and who are generally unhappy and are either too lazy, or too guilty to do anything that they would profit from. But...they will gladly throw what little money they have at an abstract idea that just might pay off. Wow..what a novel idea. Cuz you know this has never been done before.
Now then, from a business standpoint..its absoloutly brilliant.
Who wouldnt have guessed that by knitting togother a bunch of loosley concocted scientific facts, along with some really new age trendy drivel you couldnt scorew a few bucks out of the weak minded. Bank rolled by a cult leader who has apparently become the incarnation of a 35000 year old creation? BRILLIANT. Lets just market stuff that we cant disprove to an audience that is desparate for stuff that cant be disproved. Sold!
For those of you that do like this movie I thank you...you are proof that there will always be an ass for every seat and will make people like me a ton of money by opening your minds just far enough to get robbed and smile about it...
Ive never posted a movie review ever..BUT THIS... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 27, 2005 12:39 PM
Ok, I was unfortunate enough to get a viewing of thise 35 car socio-emotional pileup on the highway of hopelesness last week on DVD. Though not even paying full on attention to it I spotted several unique things. For purposes of entertainment I will review this movie from two distinctlydifferent stand points.
First from that of a right thinking human being:
This movie is dangerous. Actually the movie isnt, the concepts depicted in it are. Its living proof that several things are happening. First off, our generation (im 25), is being slowly discovered as a mindless, easily manipulated gaggle of sheep, in desparate search of real meaning that they essentially painted a huge target on themselves. Targets for people like the producers of this movie to fire salvos of brain mending new age drivel at. Why? Because hey, even if i dont understand it, or agree with it, I can really get into it cuz' its trendy and it will make me so unique, just like everyone else. It also goes to show how many members of said generation are turning into mental and emotional accident scenes. The idea of creating ones own reality and much of the other stuff they preach in this Info-Propaganda-Mercial is litereally insane. But since the clever venue of "indie" film was selected to display it..they know damn well many will not question it cuz of the trendyness of it all. And they also know that since they picked an artistic venue such as indie films..that anyone that does question it will be labeled as a closed minded conformist. How convienient. Looking at life according to them will in fact lead you to living in a basment apartment in a low income neighiborhood because youre so called progressive ideas fit in as well with normal society (and i use normal sparingly here), about as well as an elephant through the cat door. Though as long as there are incense burning, yoga doing, tatoo getting, super spiritual head cases floating around amongst us, this WILL have an audience. Its also a great microchasam of how both religion and sicligion (science/relgigion hybrid) work. Be it conventional religion, or this crap, someone is getting wealthy off it. Regardless of its the billions a year bigger organized religions take in, or the few million this takes in..someone is getting rich. Religion is not started or created if there is no financial benifit or geographic benifit in the way of land or SOME benifit to the person who starts it. I dare anyone to dispute that. Religion is the ultimate as far as packaging, marketing, and selling NOTHING!. There is no overhead, there is no cost...its just sold processed prefabricated bullshit to control minds and wallets. This is no different. It just happens to be new and trendy. If i really sat down and put my mind to it I could start a cult in about 20 minutes. Demographic? Just get mailing lists from yoga studios, holistic care centers, hiking clubs, womens groups, male group therapy centers, and throw in the list of people on wellfare too. Make up a bunch of shit they dont understand and couldnt comprehend on their best day, and then offer hope by telling them they can create their own happiness. Ill even toss in a trip to the burning man crap out in the desert. Presto. Instant cult. These are all people desparate for hope and meaning and who are generally unhappy and are either too lazy, or too guilty to do anything that they would profit from. But...they will gladly throw what little money they have at an abstract idea that just might pay off. Wow..what a novel idea. Cuz you know this has never been done before.
Now then, from a business standpoint..its absoloutly brilliant.
Who wouldnt have guessed that by knitting togother a bunch of loosley concocted scientific facts, along with some really new age trendy drivel you couldnt scorew a few bucks out of the weak minded. Bank rolled by a cult leader who has apparently become the incarnation of a 35000 year old creation? BRILLIANT. Lets just market stuff that we cant disprove to an audience that is desparate for stuff that cant be disproved. Sold!
For those of you that do like this movie I thank you...you are proof that there will always be an ass for every seat and will make people like me a ton of money by opening your minds just far enough to get robbed and smile about it...
re: What the... reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 11, 2005 1:48 AM
This may be the most absurd viewing that I have experienced since I last saw Benny Hinn heal the lame at a revival. Contains all the science of sacrament with all the insight and wisdom of a Hallmark card. Production values are worthy of any mid-priced porn flick.
Are the actors in this piece of pseudo-scientific tripe all members of the Ramtha cult? I can't imagine any other reason for being in this turkey. I'm glad I didn't pay anything to see this. And yet, I hope the "true believers" spend all their disposable income on renting this crap. That way they won't have any available resources to interfere with those of us that inhabit the rational world.
RE: you idiot reply
Posted by pmapson (No Email) on July 17, 2006 1:48 PM
A Random Shemp,
"Kill Bill" Vol 1 or 2?
Why would renting either cause me to have no problems?
If you had (note: not "if you would have" - that's a pet peeve of mine, but that's another topic) mentioned that bloated disaster of a movie "Armageddon", that would have been more apt.Plenty of explosions and completely sucks, unlike the Tarantino films.
Sounds like you have "explosions, or sex scenes" on the mind if you assume that's what I was looking for in this movie.
Now, if it was titled, "What the Bleep do we know about Explosions or Sex Scenes", you might have been correct.
How do you know I didn't take "the message" in just because I rejected most of what they said?
It was a series of unproven postulations and nonsense.
Can you coherently state here what "the message" was, in one paragraph?
I bet you can't.
If you're so defensive about this film I think you took it a bit too seriously.
wow reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 13, 2007 1:48 AM
To the person above who stated that the movie is not based on scientific proof, you are incorrect. The idea of shifting, altering, creating, and destroying ones reality through quatum physics has not been scientifically proven, however, the physics behind our matter and the relation that matter must have to eachother in conjunction with an understanding that all matter must be connected, leaves one to set aside ignorant judgements, pre-conceived notions about the scientific proof of said chemical and matter interactions.
There is no more basis for religion than quantum physics, yet millions believe - to have something in their life - a meaning, an answer, a guide for their journey.
There is no scientific proof for the existance of a god - a higher power - a heaven, yet millions believe.
If everything that we see and touch is created from matter - if our internal engine, the brain, is no more than matter firing in sequence, who are we to say that the sequence has not yet evolved. Who are we to say that "we" - humans, animals, etc - who are "matter" have not grown to understand our own material properties and the manifestation of the matter surrounding us.
Instead of slamming your hand down on the "delete from memory" "deny existence" button, instead of the pessimistic avoidant approach to the idea of new concepts, maybe you should just open your mind to the possibility that through life you have been conditioned. Without the conditioning of events and stimuli, without the structure that has for so long guided human actions (or chemical responses by matter existing within matter), one of which being religion, reality could exist on a level beyond matter's perception. A place that matter must evolve to. As we inherently have the drive to explore - on our earth, in space, with friends and family, with partners, with teachers and bosses, with chaos and daily drama's, so to must matter have that drive. Or maybe, the drive is matter.
Ramtha School of Enlightenment reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 26, 2008 7:46 PM
I have research the Ramtha.
RE: wow reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 7, 2008 4:04 PM
pmapson here again...
You said (paraphrasing for brevity):
"[to you who] stated that the movie is not based on scientific proof, you are incorrect.
and then:
The [ideas in the movie have] not been scientifically proven
- you just contradicted yourself in the next sentence!
and then:
"There is no more basis for religion than quantum physics"
- actually there's less! (i.e. basis for religion)
You also said:
"There is no scientific proof for the existance [SIC] of a god - a higher power - a heaven, yet millions believe."
- That doesn't prove anything, just because many people believe it. Ancients Greeks believed in the existence of Zeus, or was that the Romans? No matter, still doesn't prove he exists.
- Would you agree?
You said:
" "delete from memory" "deny existence" button, instead of the pessimistic avoidant approach to the idea of new concepts"
- why do the supporters of this film usually resort to ad hominem attacks on critics, instead of debating the film's concepts logically?
I'm open to new concepts, as long as they are presented with credible proof.
I do believe some parts of the film, for example that your thoughts affect your emotions - this is well known and scientifically proven. It's the more irrational stuff I have a big problem with, e.g.. the Ramtha channeling, the water reacting to written words, the early native Americans being unable to see ships because they had no concept of what a ship was. I understand that this is meant to be allegorical also to show the difficulty of accepting new ideas, but it's presented as fact. Come on! They couldn't see a sailing ship? I'd also like to see that water experiment reproduced independently under controlled conditions by impartial scientists.
"through life you have been conditioned." - we all have in one way or another. I was brought up to believe in a god, but through rational thought was able to overcome that conditioning.
In the last
paragraph you seem to be arguing that reality would be different without our conditioning. Yes, the world could be different but I don't think the laws of physics would change, and I'm not sure what this phrase means:
"reality could exist on a level beyond matter's perception.". Could you elaborate?
"As we inherently have the drive to explore - on our earth, in space, with friends and family, with partners, with teachers and bosses, with chaos and daily drama's [SIC], so to [SIC] must matter have that drive. Or maybe, the drive is matter."
- Are you implying that matter itself, in general, not just the matter that comprises our brains, has some kind of consciousness?
Note: This is the longest online debate I've had - not that I post much anywhere.
Oh, and I guess both sides are guilty of ad hominem attacks i.e. against the person and not -- in this case -- the film. For example the first response to my first post which said I should rent "Kill Bill" instead. They don't advance the argument at all but they do entertain those of the same viewpoint I suppose :)
 CONAN THE BARBARIAN |
 CAPTAIN AMERICA |
 CRAZY, STUPID, LOVE |
 THE SMURF |
 COWBOYS AND ALIENS |
 BAD TEACHER |
 MR. POPPERS PENGUINS |
 GREEN LANTERN |
