Sunday, February 05, 2006

Who should see "Down the Rabbit Hole"

Certain kinds of people shouldn't see the movie, What the Bleep: Down the Rabbit Hole. If you have no interest in questions like "Who am I," "What is consciousness," or "What is the nature of reality," then don't waste your time seeing this film. If you think meditation and yoga are New Age nonsense, then don't waste your money. If you are devoted to a traditional religious doctrine, then don't even think about seeing this film. If you are a scientist who believes that the current scientific picture of the universe is essentially complete, then avoid this film as it will make you angry. If you believe that psychic and mystical experiences are completely explanable as the delusions of the ignorant, don't waste your time. In short, if you are a devotee of orthodoxy, do not see this film.

On the other hand, if you are interested in the big philosophical questions, practice meditation or yoga, are naturally intuitive, do not believe that science completely explains everything worth understanding, or are interested in heterodoxy, then you would probably enjoy this film.

13 comments:

Mark Szlazak said...

I can guess that you believe most things on your list but if you don't mind, I'd like to hear from you which of these things you really believe and why.

Dean Radin said...

I don't understand your question.

Mark Szlazak said...

Do you have interest in questions like:

"Who am I?" (No why requested)
"What is consciousness?" (No why requested)

"What is the nature of reality?" Why?

Do you think meditation and yoga are New Age nonsense? Why?

Do you as a scientist believe that the current scientific picture of the universe is essentially complete? Why?

Do you believe that psychic and mystical experiences are completely explanable as the delusions of the ignorant? Why?

Mark Szlazak said...

One reason I ask is I've heard that David Albert has been complaining about how his interviews came off in the first movie. He says it was done in ways that will make people think he endorses things that he doesn't.

Dean Radin said...

Am I interested in questions like "Who am I?" Yes.

"What is consciousness?" Yes.

"What is the nature of reality?" Yes. Why? Because history shows that the evolution of this concept has gone through several radical transformations, and because our sense of reality, i.e. our "worldview," underlies individual and collective behavior, our values, how the engine of civilization runs, etc. How could anyone thoughtful person not be interested in this question?

Do you think meditation and yoga are New Age nonsense? On meditation, I figure that any practice that has lasted for thousands of years, and has persisted across many cultures, and is still embraced by millions of people, probably has something going for it. The research on the health effects of meditation alone is a sufficient reason to pay close attention to this topic. On new age concepts, this depends on what one means by new age. It is sometimes used as a synonym for starry-eyed wishful thinking or a lack of critical thinking, and of course that I do not agree with. But it can also mean a reappreciation for ancient concepts, indigenous wisdom, mystical insights, etc., some of which were probably correct although the theories used to describe those concepts may not be correct. I think William James once put it as (paraphrasing) the mystics were right in terms of the facts about exceptional human capacities, but the scientists are right in terms of explanatory theories.

Do you as a scientist believe that the current scientific picture of the universe is essentially complete? No. Because I read history books.

Do you believe that psychic and mystical experiences are completely explanable as the delusions of the ignorant? No. Because experimental tests control for such explanations, and the evidence continues to converge towards other, non-ordinary explanations.

Dean Radin said...

On interviews: Anyone who participates in a print or media interview knows that the information provided is going to be interpreted and used according to someone else's agenda. Sometimes you can find out the agenda in advance, or through reputation of the show or author. But oftentimes you can't, so it's a risk.

The only way to partially ensure that your message remains intact is to write your own article or book. But even then referees and editors will often require you to change things you've written.

To disagree with how one is portrayed in an interview is understandable, because sometimes you really are put in a less than favorable light. But too bad, that's par for the course.

I certainly don't agree with everything in the Bleep movie, but I am definitely in favor of media that make people think. I find it interesting, for example, that many of the early reviewers seem to think that Bleep II is virtually identical to Bleep I, when the former has over an hour of new footage. What then are the disappointed reviewers overlooking in the new film? Is the theme of the movie radically different? No. But it definitely goes further down the rabbit hole, as the title promises, and in a way designed to be palatable to nonscientists.

Mark Szlazak said...

Thank you for answering.

Also, do you know if the Ramtha school gets any money or the bulk of the money made from the Bleep movies?

I'm hearing comments that the first Bleep movie was an recruiting/advertising movie for the Ramtha school. That was a surprise to me since I didn't notice anything about Ramtha the first time I watched and only after hearing about Ramtha did I notice it briefly mentioned with a second viewing.

I enjoyed the first Bleep and look forward to the second Bleep.

Dean Radin said...

I did a webcast interview with Will Arntz, and one question I asked was about the supposed Ramtha connection. Will replied that the film was funded entirely by him. It was his idea, and his passion, with no connection to JZ Knight or the Ramtha school.

Those who now dismiss the film as a crass, money-making opportunity, or as a recruitment film, ignore the fact that no one expected that a hybrid docudrama about quantum and biophysics would have made any money at all. The first film's ultimate success (which by Hollywood standards is miniscule) was an anomaly. While this "new" audience is passionate and will undoubtedly stimulate similar films, I suspect it is too small for the big engines of Hollywood to take much notice.

Many people seeing the first film were excited by it and understandably they demanded more. So the producers complied with a book and with Bleep II, a significantly expanded director's cut.

modern vedic astrology said...

any chance of canadian distribution of this film?
i'm in toronto.

thanks

Mark Szlazak said...

"I did a webcast interview with Will Arntz, and one question I asked was about the supposed Ramtha connection. Will replied that the film was funded entirely by him. It was his idea, and his passion, with no connection to JZ Knight or the Ramtha school."

How or why did JZ Knight and some of the Ramtha school followers get into the first Bleep movie?

Dean Radin said...

> How or why did JZ Knight and some of the Ramtha school followers get into the first Bleep movie?

I imagine because they knew each other and were interested in similar topics. The underlying question, "Why was that movie made," can be asked of any creative work. Why did Mel Gibson make the Passion of the Christ? As a recruitment vehicle for the Catholic Church? I doubt it. Why are any of the "spiritual cinema" films being made? To promote religious cults? I doubt it. Creative works appear for all sorts of reasons, mostly because the artists, authors, or filmmakers have something they'd like to express.

Dean Radin said...

> any chance of canadian distribution of this film?
i'm in toronto.

See this link:
http://www.whatthebleep.com/showdates/.

Opens in Toronto on February 17, 2006.

Josette Dégalier said...

Comment expliquez-vous la méthode de la Communication Facilitée pratiquée avec les personnes privées de parole ?
Télépathie et quoi encore ?
Merci