Thanks - I will try Ebay and the local video store, as well. Back in the 70's, I loved the Tao of Physics and also Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I have not followed Capra's work since, but am going to check out his institute. An amazing man. A book I just finished - pulling together the latest scientific info on global warming - is Six Degrees by Mark Lynas. MMY said before he died that we were guaranteed heaven on earth - but something really huge has to happen to get change going on a worldwide scale - individually as well as collectively/politically - for humanity to survive. Anyway, Capra was ahead of his time.
--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "wayback71" <wayback71@> 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. > > > > > >
