We are told a whole number of things, by some weighty scientific authorities, then, the film's plot kicks in, "expanding on" or sometimes twisting up like a pretzel what we are told. Don't get me wrong, I like the movie as entertainment, and I thought the ideas portrayed by JZ/R, Miceal Ledwith and other RSE teachers were not so way out or unbelievable, as ideas - not to be taken as dogma.
But lets look at some of the scientific theories.
Nothing touches anything. (I like that one, but not sure its literally true).
Emotions are purely and simply brain chemical reactions.
You can rearrange you biochemistry through thought.
Water crystals will rearrange themselves according to emotions projected at them, or words pasted on their containers.
(some people's favourite)
The natives of NA could not see Columbus' ships because they were completely outside of their perceptual experience.
You create your own reality through thought.
If you can remember the past, you can change it, and so, you can create it and therefore create the future as well.
Thoughts directly effect matter.
Reality isn't real. Only your perception of reality is real.
There is a lot more. Anybody care to comment on or debate these scientific and pseudoscientific principles, or add to the list of topics above?
But here's my reaction to:
"Water crystals will rearrange themselves according to emotions projected at them, or words pasted on their containers.
(some people's favourite)"
There is no evidence to support the above in the Bleep movie. If water did pick up "emotions" from people and "intent" from labels, there is nothing to prevent the same water from picking up emotions and intent from thousands of human beings in thinking projection distance [whatever that distance is???]. Water with that property would be a chaotic mess and could be toxic without you knowing it. How can anyone control whose emotion is projected into the water?
"The natives of NA could not see Columbus' ships because they were completely outside of their perceptual experience.
You create your own reality through thought."
I think that is a bogus concept for several reasons. 1. Native Americans were not stupid. 2. Indians or NAs near rivers and oceans made boats and rafts of various kinds so it would have been easy to extrapolate a bigger boat with people on it when it appeared. 3. Not knowing exactly what one is seeing does not cause a negative hallucination. In fact, it may stimulate a more intense experience, an exaggerated idea of what one is looking at!
The "wooden ships on the water" described in "What the beef" - during ML's lecture at my nine-day beginner's, he stated he didn't feel that story was true. If we see something for which we have no current word, we'll use other words to try and describe it. Better yet, draw it. Anyway, seems to be some difference of opinion at RSE regarding this.
Okay. Lights out.
so I can see that point...but I think it may have been taken out of context...
This was taught when we were learning about frozen/air/liquid etc..and how the matter moves at high rates(heat)...and slows down(frozen) sorry to those who have more scientific knowlege about such...but as I said above ....it was quite some time ago....
really quite funny how bits and peices come to you...and for me ...it never comes clearly...so I may be a bit off....
After seeing the movie a few times, decided to ask my Dad, who was my authority on things scientific. He had a PHD in mathematics, but most of what he read was in the field of physics and metaphysics, also, he was fascinated by artifical intelligence and computer science.
Briefly, he told me that there were real scientific tenets behind ALL of the theories above. However, he said, science, like everything else, is open to interpretation and misinterpretation. Also, that scientists usually disagree, that is part of the spirit of inquiry and the wish to explore and know the nature of reality.
that's not the only one, but it's the first that comes to mind. If a movie that claims to give me science can't even look up how much  water is in a body, I have not a reason to believe anything else it says.
Mathematical equations from Dad:
"Scientific" equals not "rational".
"theory" equals not "proof".
"evidence" equals not "proof".
"emotional" equals not "irrational" - my pet theory. Sometimes it makes sense to "follow your heart", "go with your gut", "use your intuition", "listen to the hairs raising on the back of your neck".
The concept of reality isn't real. Your perception is reality: this one is a puzzle to me as well. My family discussions on this issue basically ended with this question -- if you and I are having a discussion and I say the couch is brown and you say yes, it's brown, how do I know that you see the same color I do? We both learned something as "brown." And we can both agree that it is "brown" when we talk, yet somehow we don't seem to connect on other issues surrounding the "brownness" of the couch. In other words, your perception of brown and mine somehow differ -- i.e. what, in reality you see as brown is really what I see as blue but we have absolutely no way of bridging this......it's really a challenge (OK, if you just ran for the aspirin....well, I'll just apologize up front for that one). Issues of quantum mechanics might help resolve this and that there is some role to perception; I'm no expert in that venue, though I've done reading on it -- it appears so far (to me) to offer that kind of resolution. How else do you resolve the issue of a group of folks all witnessing the same event...say a robbery or traffic incident and witnesses cannot convey the exact same story of what happened to authorities.
Science was never meant to be taken as written in stone. I was taught scientific methods in college and that's how it was presented, anyway. A theory is created based on evidence at hand -- theory isn't meant to stand forever -- as long as evidence over time continues to support it, it stands. The theory is supposed to be modified as new evidence from experimentation contradicts its conclusions. Evidence (it's quality) itself must be investigated by the researcher -- the very design of the study itself is a factor. Outcome depends heavily on the question postulated by the researcher, how the study is designed, the sample of information used in the study...lots of things.
Each one of us is just that....One....
We are a world of individuals experiencing our OWN life....so of course we all would have different views on what we see/feel/touch/taste/think....now put two people together with their OWN thoughts..and discussions happen..and maybe you will decide that you view things similarly..or not....but in the end....your view will NEVER be the same as mine...NEVER..it may be close but never the same.
That is why I feel there is so much kaos in this world.....we are looking for something to bind us all together..in thought..in life....in action...or inaction...but you will never find the tie that binds..as it will never make two into ONE....if you get what I mean.
Just my view ...not anyone elses....just mine.....
In the physics community, the film has been criticized for invoking quantum physics to promote pseudoscience. A letter published in Physics Today states that "the movie illustrates the uncertainty principle with a bouncing basketball being in several places at once. There's nothing wrong with that. It's recognized as pedagogical exaggeration. But the movie gradually moves to quantum 'insights' that lead a woman to toss away her antidepressant medication, to the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Atlantis god, and on to even greater nonsense." It went on to say that "most laypeople cannot tell where the quantum physics ends and the quantum nonsense begins, and many are susceptible to being misguided."
Other scientists who have commented on the film have shared similar reactions. Richard Dawkins stated that "the authors seem undecided whether their theme is quantum theory or consciousness. Both are indeed mysterious, and their genuine mystery needs none of the hype with which this film relentlessly and noisily belabours us", concluding that the film is "tosh". Professor Clive Greated wrote that "thinking on neurology and addiction are covered in some detail but, unfortunately, early references in the film to quantum physics are not followed through, leading to a confused message". Despite his caveats, he recommends that people see the movie, stating, "I hope it develops into a cult movie in the UK as it has in the US. Science and engineering are important for our future, and anything that engages the public can only be a good thing." Simon Singh called it pseudoscience and said the suggestion "that if observing water changes its molecular structure, and if we are 90% water, then by observing ourselves we can change at a fundamental level via the laws of quantum physics" was "ridiculous balderdash." According to Jo?o Magueijo, reader in theoretical physics at Imperial College, the film deliberately misquotes science. The American Chemical Society's review criticizes the film as a "pseudoscientific docudrama", saying "Among the more outlandish assertions are that people can travel backward in time, and that matter is actually thought."
The film's ideas that quantum mechanics means an observer can consciously affect reality have also been refuted by scientists such as Bernie Hobbs, a science writer with ABC Science Online. Hobbs explains, "The observer effect of quantum physics isn't about people or reality. It comes from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it's about the limitations of trying to measure the position and momentum of subatomic particles... this only applies to sub-atomic particles - a rock doesn't need you to bump into it to exist. It's there. The sub-atomic particles that make up the atoms that make up the rock are there too." Hobbs also discusses Hagelin's experiment with Transcendental Meditation and the Washington DC rate of violent crime, saying that "the number of murders actually went up." Hobbs also disputed the film's use of the ten percent myth.
David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics are linked with consciousness. He says he is "profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness."
In the film, during a discussion of the influence of experience on perception, Candice Pert notes a story, which she says she believes is true, of Native Americans being unable to see Columbus's ships because they were outside their experience. According to an article in Fortean Times by David Hambling, the origins of this story likely involved the voyages of Captain James Cook, not Columbus, and an account related by historian Robert Hughes which said Cook's ships were "...complex and unfamiliar as to defy the natives' understanding". Hambling says it is likely that both the Hughes account and the story told by Pert were exaggerations of the records left by Captain Cook and the botanist Joseph Banks. Historians believe the Native Americans likely saw the ships but ignored them as posing no immediate danger.
Skeptics such as James Randi described the film as "a fantasy docudrama" and "[a] rampant example of abuse by charlatans and cults." The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry dismisses it as "a hodgepodge of all kinds of crackpot nonsense," where "science [is] distorted and sensationalized." A BBC reviewer described it as "a documentary aimed at the totally gullible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_B ... e_Know!%3F
STOP THE BLEEPING PSEUDOSCIENCE
Quantum physics film drowns in its own bunk science High point in What The Bleep is stunning animation sequence
Will only add - it is science (possibly misrepresented and rearranged) but most of it has nothing to do with quantum physics, particle physics, or quantum mechanics...a whole bunch of sciences, which deal with entirely different concepts and views of reality - physiology, astrophysics, metaphysics, psychotherapy, astronomy, anthropology, perceptual psychology, and on and on...are all lumped together in a rather zany soup.
The quantum world seems like a metaphysical one because of a human need to explain existence, not because it is so. Science makes no such claim. Only fools like ramtha do.
Kant explored our ability to grasp reality in his Critique of Pure Reason and Husserl in his Phenomenology. The early Buddhists also wondered about the "emptiness" [shunyata] behind all reality but the Buddha wisely refused to say anything definitive about metaphysical reality.
Kant, Husserl and Buddha did resolve the innaproachableness of ultimate reality with practical philosophy. Kant's answer was his Critique of Practical Reason. Buddha his "8 fold path."
Philosophies, religions, and sciences need reasonable application to how people live and thrive to be viable. That is why so many cults fail--they are eccentric to reality and the norms of human existence, cause harm due to restriction of thought in closed systems, and lack stability. RSE offers no practical system of ethics and technologies for human life to thrive. RSE is "Gnostic", therefore is really unconcerned with material reality. It offers only an avenue to accelerate escape from reality. But ends do not justify means and the means that RSE offers are without proven merit. No one escapes through RSE, only from RSE.
My advice to current RSE members with irresolvable doubts is this:
You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don?t need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don?t need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
Paul Simon: 50 Ways To Leave Your Lover 
for me, quite a bit of the "reality" discussed in what the bleep relys on the "endless possibility" concept. That being, that the universe is infinite and so filled with infinite possibilities. One could spend all their time contemplating this but would obviously never get any sort of resolution. except to accept the mystery.
Ex. Since the universe is infinite I am not original. For me to exist in an infinite universe would mean that there is the possibility of infinite me's (what an ego boost!) there is also the possibility of all of the infinite me's doing exactly the same thing as me at the same time.......but wait, how could they be doing the same thing at the same time?? what is time? time is measured in numbers and since there is an infinite amount of #s who could say accurately what time it is? even the smallest nanosecond has to be divisible.
RSE claims to be a mystery school, and yet, it portends to unveil or have the propensity to unviel all mysteries, What the bleep followed the same path. It stirrs up ones brain to engage in concepts that boggle ones mind when attempting to have a "final resolution".
We all have experienced life where something happens to us that confronts and effects our view of reality when we were least expecting it. For myself, sometimes I have an almost instantanious grasp of a new perception of reality, other times I process it over a longer period for clarity.
I am not anti science, nor anti conciousness exploring. However, there is much written about getting lost and the dangers one might face in exploring infinite mysteries.
The commercialization of "personal growth" which WTB and RSE is an extention of tends (imho) to lead people down an endless path following limitless possibilities. All for a buck! A path which we all cannot but help to be on anyway. It is like they make life a toll road. I believe it it should be a freeway.
A parting suggestion, it might do well to remember the tale of Hansel and Gretel. When they were taken the first time in the forest they left a trail of white pebbles to find thier way back home should they be deserted. It worked, they found their way back in the moonlight. The second time they were brought out, Hansel left a trail of bread crumbs which were eaten by the birds and other animals and lost their way.
In exploring things that may lead one into unknown territory it is a good idea to have a way to find ones way back, not to mention a few back-up plans to be even more secure.
WTB, RSE and others like them tend to take ones way of finding their way back by making it seem that should they want to hold on to something be it person ,place, or thing it will keep them from going forward. I feel the opposite, if one knows their way around they can explore with more confidence.
Enjoyed your comments and perspective.
a mystery school or ancient school of wisdom, or gnostic school, or enlightenement, would be a place not to be another oprah-esque 'book of the month' club, with music from the movie of the month-club. And a collage and smattering of all manner of readers digest bits and pieces from magazines, internet, scientists, physics, medicine, herbal, holistic, new-age puja, marketing, and then the original legacy of the parts of the school that could have been built upon. But they get built up, and then disregarded, contradicted, or never happen.
Joe, loved your observation about the eccentricity of the teachings
Audacious would be another word, that sharing in person and/or on the chat room sharing once upon a time could also become copywritten and property of the school. What? when sharing basic sciences, chemistry, physics, quantum theories, philosophies, metaphysics, symbologies? and the all to prevalent mortar of rumors of TDTC.
- David McCarthy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2609
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
- Location: New Zealand
David Albert, the professor from the Columbia University physics department who was featured in the film,
is quoted in Salon.com saying:
David Albert, a professor at the Columbia University physics department, has accused the filmmakers of warping his ideas to fit a spiritual agenda."I certainly do not subscribe to the 'Ramtha School on Enlightenment,' whatever that is!"
"I'm unwittingly made to sound as if (maybe) I endorse its thesis."
" "I don't think it's quite right to say I was 'tricked' into appearing," but it is certainly the case that I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed."
"Bleep" of faith - Page 2 - Salon.com
http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/feature/ ... ndex1.html
- David McCarthy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2609
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:09 am
- Location: New Zealand
It is so called "spiritual" information spoken through the mouth of a cunning liar that traps the innocent into RSE.
likewise, it takes "factual" information spoken in the clear light of reason that reveals the doorway out into freedom,
but the terrible revelation.... "the emperor has no clothes" without love nor conscience often leaves a terrible wound
in our hearts.