[MD] Essentialism

[Ham Priday]

Hello Ron --


> Ham,
> Was watching this movie last night,
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=8655881191636417153&q=what+the+bleep
> and coincidently it applies directly to our discussions,
> a must for those interested in quantum theory.
> A very interesting documentary. Warning it has an
> argument for MITMOAT.

Thanks for the reference to this entertaining psycho-documentary.  I watched
a good portion of it in segments, not realizing that it ran an hour and 49
minutes!  I was also surprised that they chose Marlee Matlin (a deaf mute
actress) to portray the "female pilgrim" in the film.  While I can
understand why quantum theorists would be interested, the scientists guiding
us through this highly animated presentation sounded more confused than the
dysfunctional characters. There was no moral or spiritual praxis offered,
except that we should (somehow) disengage ourselves from our emotions and
merge with the "unity of Consciousness", a mystical idea that doesn't square
with the position of scientists I've known.  Also, if emotional feelings
(i.e., values) are responsible for the continuity of our experience, as the
video graphically demonstrates, how does shedding them make us wiser and
afford us greater control over our lives?

I didn't follow the thread on MITMOAT, so I'm ignorant as to what this
acronym stands for.  As far as quantum physics is concerned, I recall one
physicist saying that quantum theory means "open to possibility".  I don't
know whether that's creation "by accident" or "by design", but in either
case it doesn't provide a very cogent ontology.  Nor does explaining
"thoughts" as electro-chemical changes give us a better handle on
epistemology.  I don't deny that consciousness and memory are "wired into"
the central nervous system; it's the "being" component of "being-aware".
But, just as the image on your TV screen involves the wiring of circuit
boards in your television chassis, it's the image that you watch, not the
electrons flowing through the circuits and microchips.  Neurons and receptor
cells are secondary to value-awareness, and would not exist except for
awareness.

Despite the fascinating technical effects, I came away feeling that I hadn't
really learned anything from this presentation, and wonder what its creators
had in mind.  Was there a new philosophical "message" here that I missed, or
did the creators simpy want to produce an art film in the sci-fi genre?

I'd like to hear what you got out of it, Ron, and how you see its relation
to our discussion.

Essentially yours,
Ham