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.
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.
Comments
"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.
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.
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.
i'm in toronto.
thanks
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.
i'm in toronto.
See this link:
http://www.whatthebleep.com/showdates/.
Opens in Toronto on February 17, 2006.
Télépathie et quoi encore ?
Merci