Andrei Freeman (lordandrei) wrote,
Andrei Freeman
lordandrei

  • Mood:

Let's start with a film review

Last night I went to see the film: "What tHe &#^$ Dθ w∑ (k)πow!?"
(Movie site), (IMDB Site)

The short form is that this film is like an old Nova special with an underlying dramatization in order to give an explanation about where quantum physics meets philosophy meets spirituality.

The film has already been heralded for it's message and condemned for it's messenger(s). Which puts it at a wonderful place in my opinion.

The pseudo comedy of the 70's "Oh, God" had a very memorable scene. Burns as God shows up in a court room, babbles some fundamental philosophy, and then vanishes. The court is confused when it discovers that there is no transcript of anything "God has said." The Protagonist points out that it is left to each person to interpret what they got out of the message. By not having a transcript, they even have to rely on their own memory.

More recently than Oh, God was a stunning piece of writing in the film, "Bruce Almighty." The writing is so stunning that it is not listed in the memorable quotes section for the film on IMDB. The quote is as follows:
  • God: And the last rule is that you can not affect free will.
  • Bruce: Can I ask why?
  • God: Yes! You can! That's the beauty of it!"


Philosophy, religion, and even to some level science... it's all just theory. It's all simply axioms that we accept internally until someone or something proves them wrong. The condemnation of the film so far is based on two things
  1. The people that wrote/directed it are offshoots of 'YANC' (Yet a 'nother cult sic)
  2. The scientists spouting philosophy are disreputable


I'd like to start with the second issue first. Part of the reason I left academia is tied to the reason that I left other organizations. When politics over a purpose exceeds the purpose, it's time to reconsider if the environment is even remembering what the purpose was. In the academic world, there have been a myriad of examples of someone saying, "Hey this is kind of a radical idea and it flies in the face of everything everyone believes... what do you think?" The academic community has a grand list of complex terms to welcome such thinking. "Quack" for example.

I'm not saying that every radical thinker is correct. But what I am saying is this... when you term the pinnacle degree in studies as, "Doctor of Philosophy", it's kind of hard to take people seriously when they question theoretical research on the basis that it's just philosophical claptrap.

Let's face it, if there are any hard and fast laws of quantum physics, philosophy, spirituality, or what makes a good prime time television show... I think the world would be running a bit more smoothly. We have theories. And in truth, I'll listen to the 70 year old guy who's spend 50 years contemplating philosophy... even if I know there's no proof one way or another if he's right.

As for the other condemnation issue above: Lately, I have been listening to talk show after talk show condemning the "Kabalah Kraze." "Madonna is insane, throwing her money away, and trying to brainwash her fans." "The Kaballa center is a hoax" "QKabbballism is the new Rev. Moon."

Folks, קבּלה is a connected set of theories of organization. It is no more the solution set to the universe than is UML, Soap Operas, Jungian Psychotherapy, or Extreme Programming. None-the-less, every little piece of philosophy might help us wind our way thru the chaos that is the person we are. Unfortunately, every-time someone starts to find a good idea, someone else has to revel in the marketing of it. Sometimes that marketing of the good idea works. (Jobs' marketing and Wozniak's idea) Sometimes, the marketing obfuscates the message. And in the rarest cases... the marketing is designed to hide and protect the message. But when it comes down to it. Inevitably it's up to you to interpret the conflicting messages and see which ones take you the furthest along your path. (Or down it, if you are of that mindset)

WT%? is obviously a movie trying to deliver a message from a specific group. They have tried to water down some of the marketing machine to try to appeal to a larger crowd. Does the marketing machine itself invalidate the message? No. Could it make it harder for people to actually hear or better listen to the message? Oh, yeah.

Sometimes that is valid. People (on the whole) don't like to think. (This is my opinion, it's from personal observation, it is neither right nor wrong, but it's always open for debate (from everyone except one person who always disagrees with me.)) It is far easier to take the day as it comes. Be reactionary rather than actively take control of their lives. Therefore it is easier to be shepherded than to tell the massive 'them' to go flock itself.

Let's face it. People who've come out and said, "Hey, I've got this great idea how the world works." really don't have a great track record of surviving very long. Philosophy is a dangerous business that has low immediate yield and only long time realization long after the company founders are gone.

But is the message right or wrong?

Dear... dear readers. If you're trying to fit any philosophical message into a nice ordered set of boxes... you're in for a very long and drawn out session of filing.

The whole point of continual philosophical pursuit isn't to find an answer. It's to find more questions.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 2 comments