What the Bleep
|
 |
Monday, 13 April 09 - 01:50 AM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Spirituality & Religion |
| ||
Last week a good friend visited and gave a movie with the title "What the bleep do we really know." At first I thought, as my friend suggested this was the latest of the latest. Upon seeing it the first time, late at night, I thought hey this is a nice prelude or explanation of "The Secret".The day after, my partner asked me about the movie and I decided to look at it again. This time I paid some more attention.
Big Steps Home Quickly": Cutting Corners
There is a saying in the Netherlands: "Grote stappen, snel thuis" which would translate as "Big Steps Home Quickly" or as they say in the English language: "cutting corners." "What the Bleep" is a blend of a documentary and a fictional story and well as some animations to present a perspective on the universe and human life within that universe. Connections are made to quantum physics and neurosciences. The central theme of the movie: "We create our own reality."
Some of the ideas discussed in relation to this theme are that:
- the universe is to be seen as contructed from thought rather than from substance/matter;
- "empty space" is not empty
- matter is not solid as nuclei go in and out of existence an it is unknown where they end up;
- peptides, chemically maufactured in the brain can cause certain bodily reactions to an emotion;
- beliefs about who you are and what is real, form oneself and one's realities.
All not too shocking as such and ideas and themes that are discussed throughout a wide array of literature and discussion forums.
I cannot help but thinking that this is yet another production appealing to the large number of people seeking some sort of spiritual connection in an ever growing body of teachings to choose from. This film complements this array I could imagine, jumping from quantum physics to cognition to spirituality in a few easy to follow steps. Most off all the movie seemed to be a one and a half hour promotional movie for Ramtha and her School of Enlightenment.
As far as the scientists in the movie speaking out, it cannot be denied that at first their claims as represented in the movie were challenging to say the least" due to the nature of quantum physics at a sub-atomic level, what we call reality is actually a construct of our minds. The latter part of this concept is well known and discussed and underlies to some extent the concepts similar to those presented in "The Secret." It was the first part of this equation that was new to me and it all went so quick. Was it really all that simple? Or... doubter/cynic as I may be at times was there more to all this that was not told in the movie.
A few minutes on Google and my worries were confirmed. The producers and directors of the movie are themselves members of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment: a cult or sect whose followers look for guidance and wisdom in the words of Ramtha, who is said to have conquered the continent adjoining Atlantis. Ramtha has a 'channeler': JZ Knight, the husky voiced, bleeche and seemingly lip botoxed old
woman in Michael Jackson like uniform, who is called J Z Knight. She operates her Ramtha School of Enlightenment from Yelm, a village in Washington state, coincidently the same village where the movie opened.
Quantum physics, has this inherent beauty and attraction in that its uncertainties or vagueness can be brought in to explain virtually anything out of the ordinary: consciousness, meditation, the paranormal, time travel, ESP, and well, the list goes on. It is regarded as a most powerful theory that studies how matter behaves at the atomic and subatomic levels. Get that deep into the structure of things and it starts to behave very strangely. It almost seems like there is a counter, non-common-sense universe operating right under our noses. Subatomic particles are able to be in two places at the same time! They can exist in two times and places simultaneously but still remain highly connected and could even be at different ends of the universe (the concept of 'non-locality'). They can an do go in and out of existence at random. They can travel effortlessly from the future to the present. This would suggest that matter is influenced by future and past and could make you think about whether we could influence the past even. Since matter is so inconsistent and unpredictable, quantum finds it hard to view the world as real. When an observation isn't made; a thing technically doesn't exist: "it's just a wave, or a possibility."
What does this mean for us? It implies that we as human make things exist. It suggests that at some level, you can see what you want and observation can influence matter. This is initially illustrated by referring to the work of Masaru Emoto whose challenged research allegedly showed that water molecules can be influenced by thought. Similarly questioned is the meditation experiement referred to in the movie.
In the movie this all leads to a rationalization of God, which I think will most likely not be entertained by a lot of scientists.
A prominent role in the movie is reserved for Dr Alan Wolf. One could almost not have a better guy to present the concepts: a big grey Einsteinesque head of grey hair and an impressive CV, one of the more respected advocates of quantum theory and a presenter at Discovery Channel and I must say a great producer of easy to grasp scientific one liners:
- 'The ultimate secret is not to be in the know, but in the mystery."
- "We're mostly made not of atoms, but of mind."
- "Whatever you think you are isn't you."
- "It's all true. There are just different levels of truth."
(Hearing this one, strangely enough I could but think that this could have been one coming from Helen Clark and here string of puppets in the years before the last election.) - "There is no out there independent of what's going on in here." (the brain).
And then there was most notably the critique of one of the prominent presenters: David Albert Ph. D, who ended up being very disgruntled about being made to look as if he was endorsing the movie's underlying thesis. Here's what he said about the movie:
The Science Media Centre asked a group of scientists for their comments on the film. I will rest but saying that these scientists were, well, to say it friendly, far from positive with classifications such as: "gross misstatements of recent scientific findings", "grossing documentary", "it would be easy for someone to pick up the wrong ideas", "dangerous", "some is newpage clap trap."
Finally
I can but say I enjoyed the movie, and it gave me some food for further research. At the same time I need to say that in my view a healthy dose of skepticism may be required before you jump on to all to drastic conclusions and actions. I have had the emails of those that were disappointed with "The Secret" and wondered whether it could classify as a consumer fraud. I am curious whether some may consider similar claims about this movie which could also serve as the story behind "The Secret". An initial search after writing most of this post on Google, gave me over 3800 hits, which is way less than would have expected. So, there may be more value in this movie than I got out of it. For now I would like to close of saying: before you start using your consciousness to control matter and your reality, may I recommend some additional sources to read:
- What the bleep
- Bleep of Faith at Salon.com
- What the Bleep is Wrong With Everyone? by Evan Todras-Whitehill in the Huffington Post
- Beyond the Bleep by Alexandra Bruce, available at Google Books
- David Albert: 'What the BLEEP' is Wildly and Irresponsibly Wrong, by Annie Wagner
- What the Bleep Do We Know!? wikipedia
- What the Bleep do we Know? at Einstein Year
- Quantum World
- A discussion at Yelp
- Fred Alan Wolf's website
Related articles by Zemanta:
- Quantum Physicist reveals how to master "The Secret"!!
- Miller's Clear Contribution II: Providing a positive case/evidence for a personal God
- DiscoveryChannel.ca Introduces Fresh New Look Loaded With Video and Enhanced Technology
- Discovery Channel is No.1 in Viewer Satisfaction for Second Straight Year
- Loop quantum gravity: getting closer to reality
- Leap From The Earth, Soar Through The Cosmos, And JOURNEY TO THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE on Discovery Sunday, March 1
- Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity
Science v Christianity or Christianity as a religion without an inner core?
|
|
|
Monday, 25 August 08 - 11:50 PM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Spirituality & Religion |
| ||
Thoughts after reading the illustrated Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci Code.
I have been away for some time, enjoying some reading instead of writing. I am a sucker for beautiful editions and as a present my wife bought me the illustrated Angels and Demons and Da Vinci Code of Dan Brown, to replace the ‘normal editions' of these wonderful novels. Both have been important parts of a spiritual journey that I started several years ago. I started reading these great thrillers again. It brought back memories of the large number of publications that followed all aimed at discrediting the factuality of claims made by Dan Brown.
To me, whether he was right or wrong, mixed up facts with conspiracies and ill founded theories did not really matter. They were a great read in more than one sense: on the one hand as a thriller with one page turner after the other and on the other hand as an invitation to do additional research into the wide range of subjects covered in these two books that touched upon the many things that interested me as part of my own spiritual journey.
Although the books may have been shaky in their factuality: Angels and Demons opens us up to rethink the science v religion discussion, which is as we speak very actual in New Zealand. The idea of making CERN, the ultimate scientific outfit, the stage against which a scientist makes a major breakthrough that is to him ultimate proof of the possibility of the potential existence of a creator: something (anti-matter) created out of nothing. The same proof turns out to be the very threat that may destroy the ultimate symbol of western religion: the Vatican. The speech of the camerlengo (the PA of the as it turns out murdered Pope) in which he declares the victory of science over the physical church but at the same time makes the public and with it the reader aware of what in his view the price has been for this victory.
“Science ... has left us in a world without wonder... Each of us is now electronically connectedto the globe, yet we are utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof have become enlightened thought.... The ancient war between science and religion is over. You (science) have won but you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorientation our society ... and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning, And believe me we do cry out.”
As thriller both Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci Code had all the necessary ingredients: a hero, trying to solve a complex case to identify the culprit, a cover up and perhaps what makes these books and especially the Da Vinci code special is that it leads the hero and with it the reader to some quasi-mystical experience:
“For a moment, he (Robert Langdon) thought he a woman’s voice ... the wisdom of the ages ... whispering up from the chasms of the earth”.
I guess what both books illustrate most of all is a widespread sense that something is missing or lost in institutionalised Christianity. It brings to the attention is the continuously further polarising and at times even hostile relationship between science and religion which can be found back in such discussions and polemics as creationism, and stem cell research, the inability of institutionalised Christianity to provide answers or guidance as well as the ever more pressing need and cry out for meaning and spirituality.
It is in my view exactly that spiritual, esoteric element that is what has gone missing over the centuries. What is it that makes people look for that spiritual element in their lives outside their churches? What could maybe explain the loss of support for (traditional) Christianity? Whilst there may be some truth in the claim that science has left us in a spiritual nothingness (although many scientists would be able to convincingly argue that), at the same time institutionalised Christianity was apparently not there to fill up this gap. And I dare to describe it as a gap because for some reason most humans at one point or another in their life are looking for this spiritual/esoteric/inner experience which, looking at the popularity of alternatives, apparently was and is not offered through traditional Christianity.
It appears to me that any religion system has two core elements: the inner or esoteric centre element and the outer or exoteric core element. We see this in Judaism and the Kaballah, one could argue that Taoism is the inner element of Confucianism, Islam has Sufism. Modern institutionalized Christianity appears to be missing such an esoteric centre. Some argue that initial inner rites and rituals such as baptism or the Eucharist have been exteriorized.
Over the centuries it seems that Christianity has started to deny this esoteric element by giving rationalism primacy over spiritual insight. It is arguable that Christianity has come to deny more and more of its inner core and transformed it into hollow, exoteric, virtually meaningless rites and dogmas. This exteriorization, first led by Christianity itself and later by sciences appears to have left the church as exactly that institution that could no longer provide that meaning and spiritual insight and inner experience that had been at the basis of its initial success.Timeless esoteric elements thus become outdated, irrelevant exoteric doctrines, dogmas and rituals.
Disgruntled and disappointed by dogmatism without providing answers, people started and are still looking around for alternatives. Buddhism, New Age and a wide range of new alternatives all are readily available to provide that inner, esoteric element, so many are looking for in their quest for meaning and esoteric experience. And in all fairness, frequently these religions and teachers have been able to provide better advice. Esotericism appears to be a pariah in traditional institutionalized Christianity. Fundamentalists may even consider it to be the Devil at work whilst the liberals consider it as something antique and ancient. For people that go to their priests with actual esoteric experiences or a desire thereto this means they will most likely be met by unsatisfactory answers leading to leaving religion all together as worthless since even the so-called experts don’t appear to know and understand.
It is in this light that it is easy to understand how relatively recent discoveries such as the Gospel of Thomas and other non-canonical texts have such an appeal and impact. They do invite the reader to that spiritual experience and a search for meaning that institutionalised could or did no longer offer. More than ever there is a need for ‘teacher’ and counsellors with enough experience in the spiritual realms and to assist people in distinguishing between the genuine esoteric experience and what is offered through many of the quick fixes and miracle workers.
Could it maybe be that the Church is not losing the battle against science but the battle against itself by denying its fundamental inner/esoteric core?
There is of course much more to say here. I will leave it up to the reader to engage in a stimulating conversation.
A Rationalist With a Twist?
|
|
|
Monday, 23 June 08 - 01:49 PM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Spirituality & Religion |
| ||
Not so long ago I received an email from an old acquaintance who had stumbled upon my blog and read some of the stories. He asked me what had happened to me and if I was slowly turning into a "reborn" or "revived" Christian. "You used to be such a rationalist what has happened to you?
I thought this was actually quite an interesting question and will some of my thoughts with you.The Collins Shorter Dictionary and Thesaurus describes “rationalism” as “philosophy which regards reason as only guide or authority.”
In the Wikipedia we find the following short description:
In epistemology and in its broadest sense rationalism is “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification” (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory “in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but deductive” (Bourke 263). Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position “that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge” to the radical position that reason is “the unique path to knowledge”.
If there is anything that appears to have dominated my thinking and my state of mind it is most probably that I have this sense of always wanting to leave the door open. So instead of thinking in absolute truths I prefer to think in temporary truths that may be replaced with new insights and as a result of that a new (temporary) position. Instead of thinking in absolute, fundamentalist, terms I prefer to leave the door open. So, whilst writing this book it may well be that my position has changed by the time it is published.
For many rationalism is considered as one of those ways of actually saying that it is impossible to be a religious person and that there cannot be room for a God or a religious dogma in one’s life. I tend to see this not necessarily as rationalism but more as scepticism, or better yet fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is understood here as a state of being or mind whereby alternative ideas, that do not match with ones own view on reality or belief of reality, are blocked out just because of that. I believe that curiosity can not kill any cat and that it is exactly curiosity that opens up for new ideas and growth, personal and ultimately as humanity.
I do not for instance see an impossibility to be a rationalist and at the same time accept a certain religious dogma. In my view the most important question for a rationalist is not necessarily what your opinion is but more how you arrived at that opinion. Rationalism in my view stands for a supremacy of reason and if that reason leads you to dogmatic conclusions than that’s how it is: it does not make you more or less a rationalist. At the same time however this would lead to a relativist approach to this dogma; it may be my truth for now but that does not mean it is forever.
Rationalism, in my view, includes the option of seeing ones current position or personal truth as fallible (a theory), one that may be subject to change where the same reason requires so.
It is this (maybe personal) rationalist approach that has led me to consider myself an atheist for most of my life. I looked at the existing evidence and whilst compelling at times, I did not find conclusive evidence that there actually existed a God. At the same time however I must now admit, I wasn’t looking for any such evidence.
I wanted to believe that there was no God.
On the other hand, I found the body of atheist publications, culminating in the recent work of Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion”, similarly inconclusive. I have come to a point by now where I consider atheism to be a belief system just any religion.
For me it means that I can now rest assured and consider religious notions without having to wonder whether or not I am still maintaining a rational approach at the same time I can read atheist literature and consider it as religious in its own right.
Gospel of Thomas: Preamble
|
|
|
Wednesday, 07 May 08 - 02:00 AM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Spirituality & Religion |
| ||
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.
There are two things that strike immediately strike: the secretive nature of the sayings according to the author and the fact that the author wrote them down, enhancing the risk of the secret being discovered.
The Theory of Two Separate Teachings: for the masses and for the initiated
There have always been secrets in history, sometimes implicitly hinted at, sometimes hidden deeply and kept to a lucky, privileged few only, carried on by oral tradition. Jesus was, according to written canonical traditions asked by his disciples why he always spoke in parables to the public. His surprising answer, is recorded in the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke where he explains that “it is given unto you to know the mystery of the
We could very well ask ourselves what the purpose could be of keeping certain sayings, certain words hidden. The information age of which we are now part, is all about having access to information, to words. On a daily basis we are flooded with written and other communication, everything is open for discussion and actually appears to be discussed somewhere some place.
Is there still room to suggest not saying anything or quietness has a place? It is my sincere feeling that words, even though the best developed means of communication in inter-human traffic, are only capable of capturing part of reality. More importantly words are usually only a (limited) reflection of one’s understanding of reality. Sometimes however, there are simply no words to express the reality, in fact sometimes words can lead to complete misunderstandings. We acknowledge this, and see this translated in not being able to find words in situations or during events that truly touch us. Can you describe what it is your exactly felt when you lost a loved one? Can you describe what it is exactly that made your eyes water when that one fantastic saxophone player touched something deep inside with that one heart wrenching note? And how come the rest of the audience did not feel that?
Each and every attempt to describe reality is at the same time reducing it leaving certain aspects out resulting in a meagre and often caricaturised version of reality. Where we deal with describing certain physical realities such as a house, depending on the context and purpose of the description I can usually live with that. In fact the same reductions of reality may serve a purpose. It is different when you are for instance trying to describe your feelings. Sticking close to the example before: now instead of trying to describe what a house is, try to describe what a home is, going from the premise that the word home also represents some very personal feelings. Or try to find the right words to describe what you feel for your loved one. You will soon find the restrictions that language brings. I see this myself, in that more than once, perhaps because I am a semi-professional musician, I find it easier to not use words but instead use melody and rhythm to express such feelings.
Looking back at the preamble and thinking of Jesus as a spiritual teacher, concerned with deeper layers of existence, was aware of the risk of misunderstandings. I could imagine him being careful in what he would say to whom, also taking into consideration the time and societal circumstances in which he lived. Is it really that strange that he limited his communication of certain deeper things to those around him that may and actively were trying to understand him?
In that sense one could see these sayings as an invitation to try and grasp the meaning beyond the words. Perhaps, these teachings should be understood with the heart and soul because everyday logic is insufficient.
The Gospel of Thomas: Intro for a new series of posts
|
|
|
Wednesday, 07 May 08 - 01:45 AM (GMT +12:00) By John Dierckx in Spirituality & Religion |
| ||
Some years ago, I rented the movie Stigmata, with Patricia Arquette starring as a woman who receives the so called “stigmata” unexplained wounds similar to the wounds Jesus would have had as a result of his crucifixion. In the course of the movie a link is made with the so-called Gospel of Thomas, the document described above, however a as far as known non-existent Aramaic version. Off course, the
A quick search on the Internet brought me a wealth of information but most of all translations of this document. And while I read a lot of the scholarly annotations of this document, most of all the translations themselves appealed to me. They opened up a completely new understanding of Christianity and the teachings of Christ. A Jesus freed from dogmatic and theological shackles and fringes. In the course of the years the Gospel of Thomas has become a faithful companion, something I could and still fall back to and a source I regularly quote in spiritual and non-spiritual contexts.
In this series of posts I do not want to go into the scholarly and theological discussions of whether or not this text is reliable in that it actually represents the true teachings of Jesus. In a way the answer to that is and will always remain indeterminate so at best we can get to a point where one explanation makes more sense than another.
It is my sincere opinion that all the belief systems in the world have in common the attempt to control the apparently inherent quality of selfishness in human beings, and other root causes of problems and trouble,. They all appear to teach a path towards a spiritual state of peacefulness, discipline, ethics and wisdom. It is my view that in this sense all religions ultimately bear the same message. What cannot be denied at the same time is that this underlying message has more than once been set aside for less noble intentions or apparent tendencies to obtain power, and to rationalize absolute evils in the name of a God.
That all said - material that could fill a book by itself – for me personally the Gospel of Thomas has been one of the ways though which I found relief in my ever continuing search for peace and quietness. And that is what I would like to present as a central theme here: how the Gospel of Thomas changed my way of thinking, how it stimulated me to find me and how it was a pathway for everlasting change.
The Gospel of Thomas, by some classified as the Fifth Gospel, by others as the only true gospel and some see it as potentially what has been referred to as Q, the hypothetical collection of sayings of Jesus that can be fond back in the canonical Gospels.
The Gospel of Thomas is said to have been discovered by accident by an Arab peasant. Together with his brother, Muhammad ‘Ali’ al-Samman while digging for “sabakh”; sift soil used for fertilization purposes. Whilst digging around a big boulder they stumbled upon a red earthenware jar, almost one meter high. Initially Muhammad hesitated to break the jar; as there could be a “jinn” or spirit living inside. On the other hand the jar could contain a valuable treasure, which in itself was enough to get Mohammad over his fear, raise his pick axe and smash the jar. Thirteen papyrus books, bound in leather were identified. Back home the find was dropped in the kitchen to fuel the oven and admittedly much of the find ended up heating the oven from which food was prepared for Muhammad and his family.
The document itself has been dated around 350-400 AD, and contains around 114 sayings attributed to Jesus. There is less consensus amongst the learned community on the dating of the original text, as the text found at Nag Hammadi is a translation of an earlier Greek document, which in turn could potentially go back to an Aramaic text. Some ague for an early dating of the original text going back to around 50 AD.
Arguments relate amongst others to form and the absence of a crystallized theology.
Especially more traditional Christian belief systems have resisted against the acceptance of this text as an authentic and early source about Jesus, if only because Jesus is presented in an entirely different perspective that traditional Christian churches presented him.
A different Jesus: a Teacher and Mystic
The Jesus I knew and was taught about from the canonical gospels has always been one that I could not relate to: a unreachable, superhuman ideal. It has always been a struggle to align my understanding of the canonical gospels with what I was being taught in the Roman Catholic, and other Christian churches I have visited, attended mass at and was a member of at times. It has been a reason to go and look around for other options, proclaim myself to be an agnostic, an atheist. I have had my fair share of looking around in other belief systems, partially stimulated by being involved in martial arts and the understanding that a substantial part of the art has not so much to do with the physical as well as with the spiritual.
I guess what appealed most to me in reading the Gospel of Thomas is the Jesus that appeared to emerge from the sayings: a Jesus that does not call himself the Son of God, a Jesus that is willing to share with us the divine spark he appears to be carrying around. I see as a central theme in Jesus teachings as transpiring from these sayings a Jesus that promotes self-knowledge. The pathway to the Kingdom of the Father, the
The invitation transpiring from the Gospel is one that calls for active engagement: a reference to everyday life and living his teachings instead of leaving things at intellectual considerations. In that sense there is some similarity with the canonical gospels. The difference is significantly however in that there is no intermediary role for the church or “God’s Son”: responsibilities are brought straight back to ourselves.
In the course of reading this and related material I found literature relating to the context in which these sayings were made of great help in gaining a better personal understanding. The sources, primarily concerned with what is referred to as the historical Jesus are as inconclusive as the different interpretations of Jesus teachings. This is an important notion when reading this essay.
The interpretations of the words of Jesus as presented in this essay are my personal interpretations for which I make no claim to being right. That is not what this essay aims to do. Instead I aims to share with the reader how these words, and my understanding thereof affected me and the way I live my life.
In the following posts I will present these sayings in chronological order. The various versions that have been identified of this Gospel – there is a partial Greek version as well that was discovered earlier at Oxyrhinchus – show the same order, and whilst there is no conclusive evidence, it can at the same time not be ruled out that the author of the original version has had a specific purpose in presenting the saying in the order they were presented.
At best this essay is an invitation for the reader to start his or her own journey. For now I hope you will have as much enjoyment from reading this essay as I had in writing it and in sharing this with you.
In the course of “working” with the Gospel of Thomas, I used different translations:
* The Lambdin Translation;
* The Patterson and Meyer Translation;
* The Patterson and Robinson Translation;
Similar to the research of the historical Jesus, translators of this text came to different translations of the same Coptic text. These three translations mentioned are most widely used and recognized. I used the Lambdin translation as the central text.
However, all translations appear to add their own nuance of understanding and where I felt a need to use a different version I will notify the reader. Again it is noted that such a choice is based on personal preference and not necessarily on scholarly or otherwise more rational arguments.
The next article will be about the Preamble to this collection of sayings.... More items are available in my News Archive
