Of Being and Nothingness, Redux

"If you're not asking questions about your reality and why you're here, you're probably three quarters of the way to being dead."
-- paraphrased, Dr. Fred Wolf

Caught What the #$*! do we know? tonight at the Uptown Theater. It's a movie that walks the line science and self help, told in a series of interviews with specialists and highly regarded scientists, over a dramatic narrative starring Marlee Matlin. Put simply, it tries to explain, from a quantum physics (and neurology, biology, psychology, and uh, a little Ramtha) point of view, what constitutes reality. I can't really explain everything in the movie, but here's what I got out of it:

-- Matter isn't so much stuff as it is concept, possibility, and decision
-- Perception of reality is a completely internal and personal process
-- Thoughts can affect the state of water
-- We are mainly neural nets, polypeptides, and protein receptors
-- Kid actor Robert Bailey channels Morpheus

There's also quite a bit of discussion of how conscious decisions can affect reality, and how one can use this to change one's life. It's an interesting idea, although it's one I've heard before. It's science meets Existentialism. I felt like I was reading Jean-Paul Sartre again, talking philosophy in coffee houses. But I hadn't heard it from a scientific point of view.

Overall, I liked the movie. I think its heart is in the right place. However, I do have some quibbles. First, the CG effects and the wedding scenario distracted a bit from the bigger theme of the movie. Stuff that's more befitting of a Discovery Channel documentary, not something I want to pay eight bucks to see in a theater. In fact, I think the movie would have been more effective if they just did away with the narrative completely. Second, I agree with the idea that one can, with a conscious decision, overcome one's "addictions" (over time your body's cells create receptors for chemicals that are produced by negative emotions, etc; your body comes to crave that kind of stimulation, sometimes at the cost of nutrition) and lead a path to fulfillment and happiness. This is all well and good. However, the movie presents the argument that most normal people, with normal faculties, aren't aware of the different possibilities that quantum physics presents. But they have the capability to realize the possibilities, and they just have to choose the reality they want. Further, it also assumes that these same people are able to choose to break their addictions. What about people who don't have these faculties? Severely mentally retarded people likely do not have this "potential". Of course, I don't know that for sure, and I don't know what retarded people actually perceive. Perhaps this is the reality of their choosing. Like I said, I don't know, but the movie doesn't take any of that into account. I find it interesting that the movie makers decided to cast Matlin, a deaf woman, as the protagonist.

Third, and this is just a bias on my part, the movie undermines its logical arguments by including JZ Knight, the current channeler of Ramtha. I know that Ramtha is something that scientists are investigating (apparently it's a phenomenon quite intriguing to quantum physicists), but it seems odd here, even though she echos many of the thoughts of her fellow speakers. I don't have much to say on this subject, save that I feel it hurts the film's legitimacy. Not that I'm against New Age ideas (the movie itself is New Age/Sci), but it's a bit much, considering the other scientific arguments (note: I didn't know Knight was associated with Ramtha until the end credits).

But the most important part of the movie for me was when it came to discussing God and spirituality. I consider myself a Catholic, but quite often I find myself at odds with the Christian concept of God. Years of Catholic school, theology classes (Western and Eastern), and Bible study have given me plenty of perspectives on God. Naturally, I have trouble reconciling what I was taught growing up with what I learned later on. I no longer believe that God is this defined, physical being that sits in judgment. I've thought this for years. Rather, God to me is harder to define than that. One of the movie's talking heads states, "Trying to explain God is like trying to explain water to the fish that's swimming in it". The movie ties in science and spirituality as two closely related subjects that intersect at the concept that when you get underneath the societal, organic, cellular, atomic, and finally, subatomic, levels, we are all really one. Coupled with the notion of possibilities, you have a unifying concept of spirituality: God is not necessarily a being without; God is within and everything in between. We are one with this power, literally. This could explain how we were supposed to have been created in God's image. I suppose the movie then explains, in its own way, the ideals, the avatars of major religions: Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha. The argument is that one can eventually elevate oneself to those ideals. And extending from this is the idea that morality is not a factor in fulfillment. Morality is not as simple as right and wrong, good and evil. Such notions have warped spirituality and have led to much suffering.

Now, I agree with some of that, and a lot of it I'm skeptical on how to make those connections, where to make the leap of faith. But I'm glad to see that there isn't a solid line between the science and spirituality, as I'd been led to believe. The film's ideas are a work-in-progress, just like every one of us. And because of that, I'd call this the most optimistic and hopeful movie of the year.


Note: What you have just read is some of the most unorganized thinking I've ever posted. If you watch the film or have similar ideas, then you'll know that it's difficult to explain it succinctly. At least I can't, anyway.