Entangled artists


Graphic artist Teka Luttrell sent me the following curious coincidence:

"About 10 days ago ... around May 11th (2006) ... all members of IONS received your book and the intro DVD to "Down the Rabbit Hole" ...which largely was about Entangled Minds. I shared the DVD with a small meditation group, too, and we all thought that your research is very cool.

"On the Saturday that followed -- May 13th -- I created a very unusual piece of art for a project I'm developing. (As shown, an iris with stars inside the pupil.)





"Then, last Friday, I received the new Shift magazine from IONS. I instantly noticed that the central piece of art on the cover was very similar to the artwork that I had created 6 days earlier. Of course, the magazine cover was artistically developed a couple months before it was printed. But the point is that I developed my piece without any knowledge of the Shift cover ... and these two "seemingly" separate pieces came together ... they crossed paths in time and we are now conscious of their behind-the-scenes entanglement."

You can visit Teka's website here

Comments

Anonymous said…
I love that kind of stuff!
Monday, May 22, 2006
Anonymous said…
Dean:

I just picked up the book at the Barnes & Noble on Lex and 86th in NYC. It is in the New Age section. I was indignant, assuming that as it is scientificaly rigorous it should be in science, but then I saw you've got a blurb from Deepak Chopra on the back, so I suppose you get what you ask for. Maybe I am making too much of this, anf maybe the publisher is making the best decision in terms of marketing the book, but does it really serve the cause -- the cause being getting mainstream science to acknowledge the fact of psi phenomena -- when one of the leading exponents in putting out books in the New Age section and getting blurbed by a New Age guru?

I ask this question in good faith, as a person who believes the evidence for psi is strong and persausive.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Dean Radin said…
At my request, the book was officially cross-listed as both Science and as Religion/Spiritual. These are the two closest publication categories for books of this type.

Which shelf the book actually ends up on in a bookstore is up to each store. In some science book specialty stores, it's shelved next to books like The Elegant Universe, where in my view it belongs.

The jacket quote from Deepak Chopra was a marketing decision. I was fortunate to get many available advance blurbs, but this was Simon & Schuster's call, probably based on Chopra's broad name recognition. Not all scientists are turned off by his view of the world.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Anonymous said…
I think the problem is that Chopra's view is too much of a mystics view. And to add to the insult he mixes in quantum mechanics! As you pointed out in Entangled minds, this kind of coupling is a big taboo. In my opinion the mystic traditions should be taken seriously. I just don't understand why most scientists abhor mysticism.

-Tor
Friday, May 26, 2006
M.C. said…
I actually write two blogs. One of them is more or less about psi phenomena and the other is about mysticism (well I also post some of my landscape photos there, they go well together).

But I don't push the mysticism stuff on anyone. People come to that realization when they are ready for it.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Anonymous said…
“ENTANGLED- SCIENCE & ART”- MISSION:
Science and Art are paths taken from the known to the unknown
(Preliminary approach to be shared by means of the promotional committee for improving an
FP7 Project 2007-2011 on SCIENCE & SOCIETY )
"Entangled Science and Art project idea", would interweaving people into a whole context of co-evolution to generate a non local general science as the foundation of the future knowledge society .

“ENT.SCI&ART” is an Art/Science performance research project preliminarily proposed by EGOCREANET/ON-NS which a deep resonances with Bio-quantum Physics Concept of “ENTANGLEMENT” aiming to improve an international open network for new science.
This would be possible starting by creating an emergent open network to share innovative ideas in new science and art performances. See preliminary information in :BLENDING ART AND SCIENCE
- what is ENTANGLED SCIENCE & ART ?
- The mean of “ENTANGLEMENT” is employed to investigate complex patterns resulting from simple rules of Bio-Quantum Physics, oriented to re-interpret “not localized coherent states” in connected living systems. “Entanglement Science & Art” open network , means the research for a strong correlation of shared not localized dynamic relationship between innovative “ life sciences and modern art “.

ENT.SCI&ART- future project aims :
(1) - To create new methods and technologies for artistic design and cultural expression based on scientific Bio-Quantum Physics theories - (2)- To build up a research team to develop innovative new technologies for an interactive blending in all possible shared performances between Science & Art in a not localized synergy - (3)- To communicate these newly developed ideas methods and communication technology in an open access by means international courses/workshop/seminars and interactive performance events.; - (4) - To maintain and to develop co-operation among similar research and performance activity for the future of “ Science & Art ” trans-disciplinary blending .
Background:
. EGOCREANET - OPEN NETWORK FOR NEW SCIENCE is a private research virtual association, linked to the Laboratory of the Education Research of the University of Florence (IT). The promotional team of “ENT.SCI&ART” founded by EGOCREANET/ON-NS , is including all experienced Scientist/ Artists/ Educators, and also similar international project linked by means a cooperative effort to this proposal , committed to communicating new ideas and skills as broadly as possible. The initial research program and performances work will be tested in a public event ( the next 22-NOV/2007) at the art-science-and technology prestigious antique venue of : AULA GALILEO GALILEI c/o SPECULA MUSEUM in FLORENCE (Italy) .
Friday, August 24, 2007
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven

Image
Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper: In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected. Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow. She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established. "The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments." Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists. Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing. He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area ...
Read more

Feeling the future meta-analysis

Before Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem published an article on precognition in the prominent  Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, it had already (and ironically given the topic) evoked a response from the status quo. The New York Times  was kind enough to  prepare us to be outraged .  It was called " craziness, pure craziness" by life-long critic Ray Hyman. Within days the news media was announcing that it was all just a big mistake .  I wrote about the ensuing brouhaha  in this blog .  But the bottom line in science, and the key factor that trumps hysterical criticism, is whether the claimed effect can be repeated by independent investigators. If it can't then perhaps the original claim was mistaken or idiosyncratic. If it can, then the critics need to rethink their position. Now we have an answer to the question about replication. An article has been submitted to the Journal of Social and Personality Psycho...
Read more

Show me the evidence

Image
Critics are fond of saying that there is no scientific evidence for psi. They wave their fist in the air and shout, "Show me the evidence!" Then they turn red and have a coughing fit. In less dramatic cases a student  might be genuinely curious and open-minded, but unsure where to begin to find reliable evidence about psi. Google knows all and sees all, but it doesn't know how to interpret or evaluate what it knows (at least not yet). In the past, my response to the "show me" challenge has been to give the titles of a few books to read, point to the bibliographies in those books, and advise the person to do their homework. I still think that this is the best approach for a beginner tackling a complex topic. But given the growing expectation that information on  virtually any topic ought to be available online within 60 seconds, traditional methods of scholarship are disappearing fast. So I've created a SHOW ME  page with downloadable articles on psi a...
Read more