This Friday, I watched one of the most fascinating films in my life. What the *bleep* do you know? was one film during which I got so totally excited… I surprised myself. I was near the edge of my seat as scene after scene unfolded on the screen. The film is an amazing documentary which talks about quantum physics, sub-atomic particles, duality of light, probability, consciousness and Advaita in one breath. Watch it, guys and you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about! It was one helluva film! I can’t even begin to describe how completely entranced I was when I came out of the theatre… It could not have come at a better time. Man, some people can be creative… and I have miles to go before I sleep. Like I told one of my AOL teachers, “It’s like Alice in Wonderland. Gets curiouser and curiouser…”
P.S. One of the memorable moments was an amazing picturisation of Robert Palmer’s ‘Addicted to Love’ at a really appropriate juncture of the film. It made total sense, believe me!!!
sat_chit_anand says:
I dont see how a post on imdb website be more or less knowledgable in this matter. Also the wikipedia post seems to alledge that the view of scientists in the movie are different from the ‘general’ scientific community. If your read through the history of development of Quantum Physics, you will realize that the subject has so deeply divided the scientific community into so many factions. So to say that there is something like a ‘general’ commonly accepted view of Quantum Physics is a moot point. I dont think there is general view. Unlike Classical Physics, Quantum Physics is so much in the probabilistic domain that to expect that there will be a single unique interpretation is very unlikely. Besides someone has mentioned in one of the post how there is a existing stream of thought (referred to as psuedo science) which propounds that spirituality and science are related. I call this movement of labeling something which doesnt fit into the idea of science being unique and sprituality being mumbo jumbo as ‘Crass Rationalism’. What is true scientific attitude ? certainly not rejecting something because it doesnt fit into ones idea of what science should be. I dont think any of the above links are really making much point. What raises my doubts is what you found out regarding the publicity of lectures happening at the theater. That certainly raises questions about the credibility of movie makers. But again it might be possible that Mr. Emoto is actually piggy backing on the movie to sell his lectures.
October 17, 2004 — 12:50 pm
99kanitas says:
fascinating, must check it out.
October 17, 2004 — 7:50 pm
hariputtar says:
– yogis can make many statements. some of them may be true. that does not prove that all are true. often a lot of these statements of present day gurus are uncanny back-tracked-thinking from known facts from science.
– one can reach the same answer by many methods – all of these methods may not be scientific or logical. so true *conclusions* by yogis may not prove that there is scientific/logical reasoning involved in the process of reaching the conclusions – often there are leaps of faith.
personally i believe in the alien-god theory:
– why wud vedic people write metric poetry in an unpronounceable language ? (e.g. rig-veda’s gayathri mantra) and why the hell wud they care about how the universe started – and that *aum* was the first word ? and that *aum* turns out to be same in judeo-christian religions too.
if we accept alien-god theory, everything falls in place … religions, scientific and mystical views of universe etc etc.
now: how did the aliens know, all that they told us.
October 18, 2004 — 1:20 am
Lakshmi says:
Re: We don’t know much..but still
Chechi, whatever be the ifs and buts about the film, I have to admit it: I was floored. Especially b’coz this entire theory ties in neatly with everything that I’ve been reading and hearing about (quantum physics, behaviour of electrons, the Alchemist theory etc.) and what I’ve gathered from Sri Sri’s teachings. Whatever be the *dubious* aspect of the film, my experience was undeniable. I loved it…:-)
October 18, 2004 — 7:05 am
sat_chit_anand says:
“I wish the film makers also accepted this and atleast tried to tell the viewers this is ‘one of’ the wildest interpretations. “
There are interpretations(period). Just because a set of people say that it is far fetched(because of the fact that it doesnt match up with their idea) doesnt make it ‘wildest’.
“believe that it is ‘the’ interpretation”
I dont remember this being stressed ever in the movie. If someone watches a documentary(on any thing) and thinks that its the only interpretation(truth etc.) then he is limiting the possibilities of understanding the subject in question. I thought the whole movie was trying to open the viewers mind to the fact that some very interesting findings and interpretations exist which seem to correlate a link between physics and spirituality. And again this is what I figured and might not necessarily be the intention of the movie makers(for that matter nobody can figure their intentions except for the movie makers)
“Then this guy Emoto, he has not published his study/research in any scientific journal ever(except one photo essay). In science, publishing in a reputed journal is the first step in establishing and spreading your research, a research becomes validated, peer reviewed and can be be supported or contradicted after publishing. Why did he not do that? And why did the film makers try to pass of a theory with no valid acceptance as a revolutionary break in the field”
The only thing that I figured from the whole Emoto and water crystal formation was that they were trying to draw home the point about how receptive water was in an experiment conducted by this Emoto person. I didnt think they were making that as a basis to support the entire idea of the movie.
“The two main requisites of a documentary is to be factual and objective”
I dont think any documentary really sticks to this 100%. The simple reason being (what happens also in quantum phenomenon) that there are various ways in which the documentary maker(observer) can make an observation of the same thing. Besides I think there is an implicit assumption here that it is a documentary. Personally I go to view a film as a work of a group of people to provide a view point be it through facts(as observed by them or their sources), stories, music, visuals etc. Labelling doesnt really help.
Overall I feel that all of us have these triggers in us which get actuated when we see something (say a movie) and that leads to us watching the movie in a particular sense. No wonder not all of us like/dislike the same movies.
October 18, 2004 — 10:41 am
Lakshmi says:
Touche!!!
October 18, 2004 — 11:48 am
Lakshmi says:
Re: We don’t know much..but still
Yes, I was talking about Coelho’s Alchemist. So that I don’t make a fool of myself by barking up the wrong tree, I was referring to the theory of the Universal Spirit/Consciousness. Let me look up and find you some relevant reading material about what you asked.
In any case, I had no idea about Ramtha’s background.
October 18, 2004 — 5:44 pm
hariputtar says:
you have seen Amyway videos too ? are u a member there ? god! [ i am quite petrified of walmart-safeway-haunting-network-marketing-desis. i have had 3 encounters so far. now, the very sight of a smiling desi approaching me makes me nervous. ]
October 18, 2004 — 9:09 pm