--- In [email protected], "wayback71" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You mention the film Mindwalk. I cannot find it on Netflix - > has it just been released?
It is sadly one of the hardest films in the world to find. It was only released on VHS tape, never on DVD, so your most likely source would be a video store that has an "arty" side that still has a copy. I am privileged to have a copy made from VHS into a very grainy but watchable digital format. It stars Sam Waterston (as a politician who has just failed in his run for President), John Heard (a poet, a good one but who is just getting by), and Liv Ullmann (a physicist who can no longer work as a physicist because she cannot take her work being used to develop weapons). They meet while wandering around Mont Saint Michel in France, and the entire movie consists of their conversation as they walk around in that setting. If you ever saw "My Dinner With Andre," think that level of conversation squared. Arguably the best intellectual, humanist conversation ever captured on film. Truly lovely and inspiring film. It was cowritten by Fritjof Capra and his brother Bernt, and directed by Bernt, based on ideas in Fritjof's book "The Turning Point." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra Good luck finding it. It came out in 1990, and it took me until last year to find my own copy. You might get lucky on Ebay, or on one of those sites where they sell off VHS tapes. It's well worth a watch when you find it. > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sandiego108" <sandiego108@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > As far as I can tell, the universe is the > > > > *cooperative* co-creation of all of the sentient > > > > beings that compose it. Each of them contributes > > > > a piece of the puzzle -- each perceiving and, on > > > > a quantum level, bringing realities into existence > > > > *by* perceiving -- but the puzzle itself has a > > > > consensual existence beyond the individual > > > > sentient beings. > > > > > > > > The universe is not going to miss you when you > > > > are gone. And it won't go away. Therefore, you > > > > do not "create" it. You merely perceive it, and > > > > try to make sense of what you perceive. Again, I > > > > have *no problem* with what you perceive being > > > > totally different than what I perceive. But > > > > neither what you perceive nor what I perceive > > > > constitutes the whole. It's just two points of > > > > view in a universe composed of the relationships > > > > between an infinite number of points of view. > > > > > > What you are spinning here makes a lot of sense-- even could be seen > > > as an answer to many questions, but I cannot buy off on it as Truth, > > > something you regularly question yourself here. > > > > Nor did I present it as Truth, or even truth. > > It is, like everything I say here, merely my > > opinion. My argument is NOT with you, Jim, or > > with the *perception* of Unity, if that is what > > you are really having, it's with imprecise lang- > > uage when trying to describe that perception. > > > > The "New Age" tends to throw "create" around > > where they really mean "perceive." I think it's > > not a favor to either word, or to what they are > > trying to convey. > > > > > I can't say for sure what you are saying is accurate-- might be and > > > might not be. Sounds like a really good theory and belief to me- > > > seriously. > > > > Part of the last paragraph comes from the movie > > I was watching last night while I was typing it, > > Fritjof Capra and his brother's wonderful film > > "Mindwalk." Capra IS a physicist, and the author > > of "The Tao of Physics." He understands the rami- > > fications of quantum theory better than most. And > > while it may be "true" under quantum theory that > > an electron doesn't really exist in a fixed, meas- > > urable position in space until someone tries to > > measure it (and thus *perceives* it), the percep- > > tion DOES NOT "create" the electron. It has always > > already been present as a kind of sphere of poten- > > tialities and probabilities. All that the percep- > > tion of the scientist does is to "freeze" it mom- > > entarily in one position, *as if* it had been > > "created" there. But it was always already present > > in ALL positions around the nucleus. Perceiving it > > in one position around the nucleus didn't "create" > > it there. > > > > My point is that is may *seem* as if we "create" > > the world when we perceive it, but I honestly do > > not think that this is the case. We perceive the > > world, and in so doing, "freeze" a part of an > > infinite number of potentialities and probabilities > > into a momentary configuration. That momentary > > configuration "fights it out" with the momentary > > configurations perceived by billions and billions > > of other perceivers, and the result is what we > > call the world. But the world was not really > > "created" by any one of them, or even by all of > > them working together. It has always already been > > present, in a fluid, non-formed state of potentiality > > and probability. > > > > Or not. :-) > > > > They're just theories, Jim. > > >
