Yep, I'd read some about this. They might as well have released a video version of Jonathan Livingston Seagull or something. Well, that book was at least coherent.

Anyway, the cover art is kind of a tip-off.

It's pure crap. I can't believe people actually find meaning in it.

Hi Nehring!

I've been on here posting about this event for the last couple of weeks - Four Bleep Scientists & A Kabbalist -http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/09/173740.php

According to reports I've heard the event went extremely well and I suggest watching the news for coverage. It will hopefully clarify all the issues you raised.

You can start reading a bit on www.kabbalah.info if you want in the meantime.

J.

I thought the film was excellent entertainment and I have watched it twice. If I were expecting a lesson on quantum physics, philosophy, or spiritual mediumship, I might have been sorely dissapointed yet this film was put together as entertainment, nothing more. To present it in review as anything other than entertainment demonstrates a level of ignorance about art.

The references to right/wrong that Nehring makes in her/his review I don't understand. On the one hand it seems that Nehring is making informed statments about the accuracy and scientific content of the the film yet, on the other hand, concludes that either the participants or the film-makers (or both) believe that their's is the only valid opinion. Rubbish.

It is this kind of reviewing that impresses me as biased and manipulative, and in in this case plagurised. Yes, this opinion of Nehring's is not original, with the exception of Indie audiances being "stupid", now that's original, not very scientific and discounts Nehring's position as racially motivated.

Let's not confuse Art/Entertainment with scientific depth and accuracy. For me this was a highly entertaining 90 minutes and has gone further than any other film that I'm aware of in the last 50 years to explaining quantum theory and more.

Let me expose one myth: JZ Knight never channeled a 35,000 warrior named Ramtha in the film. To state otherwise as "fact" is false and unsubstantiated. What she believes she was doing or what she may have been doing can only be speculated.

I highly recommend this film as great value, fun, and thought provoking.

I completely fail to understand why some wascky new age religion would be trying to co-opt science.

Are they so swept up in this dizzy idea as to imagine that any rational person would believe this nonsense? Or that their unique logic could withstand (blog)criticism?

Alienboy - you better start getting your facts straight before you post - wacky new age religion? Come on you can do better than that. Kabbalah is the oldest source - actually the first source in the world and it is not a religion - it is a precise science for understanding everything in reality. And don't worry about not understanding - there's always your next life to look forward to :)

The world's leading scientists are not threatened by this information - just the opposite. I'll be posting about the event within the hour - stay tuned.

I found this film very thought provoking. Any movie that dose that is OK. Yes, there were times when it was hokey and hard to watch but I almost intuitively understood the points that the film was trying to make.
Based on Nehrings "review" I would say that he made up his mind and then closed it in the first ten minutes.

Josia, if you actually have any facts, bring them on!

Just cos kabbalah may be old doesn't prevent it from being a wacky new age religion.

And i looked at your kabbalah site and found that "the essence of the wisdom of Kabbalah... provides a practical method for understanding the goal of creation and our purpose in life: achieving tranquility, eternity, and unbounded joy while still living in this world. In this manner a person takes control over his life and transcends the boundaries of time and space.

Our goal is to assist you embark on the first stages of the path to spiritual ascent and attainment of the spiritual realms. Author: Rabbi Michael Laitman"

That sounds exactly like a wacky religion to me. And as we ALL only have one life, I'll take my understanding where I can find it thank you.

Richard Edwards: There are a million films that can make you think, but not all thoughts are good. Any movie that tries to make me believe in some pointless drivel is bad even if it forces me to think to resist the drivel presented.

Just cos some film with an agenda is made, I don't have to give it the respect of watching it or taking it seriously. And that doesn't mean I have a closed mind, just been there, done that; if you want a re-think, give me new information...

Well, I guess I've kicked over the theological can of worms...

I need to correct a couple of Mike's claims.

Mike, it is a serious thing to call someone a racist or a plagiarist. The former is socially unacceptable and the latter is a crime.

You inferred I was a racist because I believe Indie audiences are a bunch of dim-eyed goofs for embracing this movie. Indie audiences are actually not a racially specific group. "Indie" refers to Independent audiences - people who partake in the "independent film" movement. I assume you were under the impression I was referring to people from India. To the careful reader, this would be clear.

The charge of plagiarism is ridiculous. My words are my own. My thinking is my own. Are there others out there who share my opinion that this movie is nothing more than diaper lining? Yep. Plenty of people have written about it. This does not make me a plagiarist. Unoriginal? Sure. Plagiarist? No. A plagiarist actually uses someone else's expression of an idea. You should repost and attack me for my lack of original thought.

Moving on, you said, "If I were expecting a lesson on quantum physics, philosophy, or spiritual mediumship, I might have been sorely dissapointed." This movie attempts to offer lessons on quantum physics and philosphy. That is the whole point of the movie. I'm confused on what you thought this movie was about if not that? This is a documentary that uses fictional vignettes to express its points.

This movie is intended to instruct as much as an episode of "Frontline" or "Nova". The problem I have is that the science and the philosphy exposed are weak at best, if just not outright wrong.

My boyfriend and i have watched the movie 3 times now and are fasinated with it each time. Before doing so we had watched the Nova Specials The elegant universe which kept us looking for more information. Finally something that is based on math. Albert Einsteins hopes for General relativity is the basis of string theory, quantums physics is derived from string theory. The ideas behind this movie where scientifically and mathematically proven ( I might not be able to cite an example of this in the movie off hand But if you understand the true meaning of the m theory and general relativity you already know the corelation.) Anyways we are all naive' to think of these ideas as cult like, The phillosophers and scientists are very well spoken and educated and regaurded as reliable. Sure there is the crazy ramtha bitch but that is just stereotyping the show as unreasonable, when if taken in the right context with an open mind it can be a trully enlightening thing.

Re: Nehring's retort

You cannot "correct" anything that I say Nehring and to imply so demonstrates an arrogant behaviour.

When you used the words "how plain stupid this crowd truly is", whether Indie or Indian, represents a generalisation and therefore a prejudicial and biased belief about a collective group of people. The judgement of any person or group of people as "stupid" further offers a glimpse into the way you characterise and marginalise others in your own thinking in order to make a point. If you check your American history you might discover that this is one of the reasons the civil rights movement was established.

I'm not sure what "crime" you are referring to. In a country where litigiousness is as common as a "Big Mac" there probably is a case of law that might cover this exchange in the US. I don't agree with your original review because it seemed to communicate biased and prejudicial opinions.

I'm not convinced that you or anyone other than the film makers have the ability to say what the intention of the film was on any level. Perhaps what you mean is that your opinion or beliefs are "this and that". Rather than simply stating this directly, you seem (to me) to write as an authority on such things as: the intention of the film makers, the mental prowress of Indie audiances, or the meaning of the film, none of which you present as your opinion but rather as the all-knowing, all-seeing, prophet of film critique. Therefore I assert "plagiarism" in the meaning of:

1. A piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.

2. The act of plagiarising; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.

This entire subject has everything to do with ancient Babylonian Mystery School. From re-incarnation to Atlantean entities that are channelled through mediums....there is nothing new under the sun as Solomom so eloquently stated. Yes, the spirit entity calling itself, Ramtha, does know quite abit about the fabric of reality since he's been existing for thousands of years and has an angelic intellect. Please understand, the concept of evo;ution didn't start with Darwin , it's as old as the tower of Babel and Nimrod. Listen closely.....mankind..spiritual enlightenment...progress...acheiving Godhood....That is the LIE of the serpent in Genesis 3. Same old B.S. Far from self-realization and getting control of my life and thinking that I'm a god....I willingly bow my knee to the truth of Jesus the Messiah and champion of mankind. Only through knowing Him by the seed (word) of God can we ever be freed from the prison of SELF and become joined with Him in His perfection. Ramtha is a fallen angelic entity that is out to deceive and turn people from REPENTENCE and FAITH in the one true God. With the Mystery Schools of Babylon there is no SIN, DEATH JUDGEMENT or HELL. Wrong. Very wrong. The New World Order will institute this as the only religion that's acceptable in the coming age. Mystery Babyon.

Goblover,
The Elegant Universe is an excellent show, but you missed one of the main premises in the show: String Theory cannot yet be "proven" as it is not falsifiable. There are currently no experiments that can be done to test it, and thus far, it more closely resembles a philosophy similar to Ramtha or Jon's Messiah. Most of the ideas in this film are a pseudo-science, like "intelligent design", they don't offer tests that can be performed that can prove the theory wrong, and therefore cannot be proven. Speaking of philosophy, hey Jon, when Jesus comes back, can I have your house. Oh wait, he's not coming back. Sorry.

Yes, thank you. He is my Messiah. I need a savior, you see, because I realize that I have sinned.

The fact that Jesus is the Christ is PROVABLE unlike String Theory, but most people don't have a love of the truth. Their eyes are blinded and they are under a God sent delusion. (see 2 Thess.)If you are an evolutionist, you are waaayyy behind in current scientific evidence. But then again, you do not want to know the truth because it will lead you to the knowledge that you will give account of your life to a Holy God....not the universal-pantheistic-non-personal god of J.Z. and all other New Age expounders, but the God of the Bible. All science leads to this truth....a single cell is far more complex that New York City...chemical systems that must all be in operation for the cell to live....impossible to evolve step by step...but...you must LOVE THE TRUTH....your eyes are closed.
"Professing to be wise they became fools and their foolish hearts were darkened." "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Are you willing to be chipped? To take the subdermal implant RFID microchip that is being used internationally? Oh, first it will be the National I.D. card that has the chip in it.....but soon, as in Europe and Mexico and New Zealand...you will be required to take the chip. The sciptures are true and the Beast is a ruling world government. Cashless society. Can't buy or sell without it. This is FACT. It is happening right now. You will take the mark because you reject "Jon's Messiah". Wake up and do some research in the scriptures then in the news....Earthquake activity is one of the main warnings that Jon's Messiah gave as a sign. Ramtha and all other evolution/reincarnation teachers are nothing more than the entities that the scriptures warned us about. They actually prove the bible is true if you will cl;osely listen to what they are trying to make you believe/ not believe.

kabbalah is a sect, and it took my father. kabbalah is not a science, it is only a sect!!!and this film was very very big nonsense!

I found the micro-science and dramatized aspects fascinating and not without some truth. We all can live without the Ramtha pyscho-bitch

rvz, tell kabbalah to give him back

I am very disturbed at the quickness of some people to accept the hucksters in this film as "phillosophers and scientists." Why did you decide that these nitwits are "regaurded as reliable?" Do you really believe that anyone deserving of your respect would help produce an infomercial for a dangerous cult? Have you never seen a real philosopher or a real scientist?

David Albert, the one actual physics expert in the film, says that he was "edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed."

After reviewing the qualifications of the other so-called experts, I found one to be a chiropractor and another a child molester. Calling these nitwits "phillosophers and scientists" is deeply insulting to people who have worked hard to deserve the title.

It is also disturbing when people think that they learned a lot about science by watching this film. You haven't learned anything! Water molecules cannot crawl out of a bottle, read the label, crawl back in and translate the language for their friends. Your body is not 90% water. The crime rate cannot be lowered by sitting on your ass and chanting. Quantum effects do not affect our consciousness because the distance between the nerve synapse in our brain is two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential.

The real message of the movie is that nothing is real and we can change reality merely by consciously choosing it to be different. If you really believe that you can do this, I invite you to jump off a tall building and chose a different outcome than the inevitable splat.

Isn't it funny how we can send a space probe to Saturn and find that the same natural laws apply in a place where no human has ever been to establish them? Shouldn't an insane asylum be a chaotic place of changing architecture and variable physical laws if the inmates were choosing the reality?

It's no wonder that our country is in so much trouble when so many of our citizens are willing to swallow a turd like this just because it is presented in a pretty package.

http://willametteweek.com/print.php?story=5860

Well coming late to the party... but..I said I'd respond to Nehring.. :-)
I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the show. To me the central theme of the show is we control our reactions to the world. To me the movie said, we have control. I loved the scene where she is looking in the mirror and decides not to hate her self for her short coming, but love herself, not because she purchased the right toothpaste, but because she decided too! Wow... many people are still stuck in the idea that they only victims of the world. That theme alone buys a plus from this reviewer.

And the polish wedding reception, Ufda! I was sucking air as everyone was dancing with there IV's full of chemical peptides. Just thinking of it makes me smile. The little figures for hate, shame, lust, anger, ect... If we could only truly seem them in real life, in other and ourselves. I haven't has so much fun with inner dialog since reading Dune!

Well how about he more questionably parts of the film, like we're all gods, or there is no right or wrong (but thinking makes them so) and additions are bad. I found it interest to look at the ideas ( I can see you rolling your eyes on this one). Language is important, and I'm not a lawyer so bear with my fit of fancy. Instead of saying were all gods, how about where all CEO's of our own life? And a lot of the rights and wrong in the world have been told to us by some authority. Isn't it time we start making those decisions for ourselves. I mean at one point in our countries history , it was wrong for women to vote and right to own people as things/property.

....

I cant understand why people object to this movie. With all the movies filled with crap and violence, I found this one refreshing and enjoyable. And as for people worrying about this being a recruiting film, how about Sin City, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the 10pm news or Van Helsing... (ok I liked Sin City, but still)

In the end were all just 'product' being sold to advertisers

Worred about what on TV/Movies check out
http://www.mediafamily.org

I think I'll get back to reading 'As a man thinketh'....

I'm receiving a message from my 35,000 year old conscience that this movie is best BELIEVED if you're not willing to do SOME critical thinking.

Yeah, I know. I'm closed minded. Beats being dilusional.

I was not sure what to expect from this film, after seeing it, my husband and I were not too surprised by what they said, we already knew through expirence that you effect everything in the universe with your thoughts. That is the difference between KNOWING and BLIND BELIEF. One is spiritual, the other is a popular religion slowly going downhill.

After reading jon, Im glad to live far away from the US.

By the way, I have read Brian Greens book "The Elegant Universe", it has a looot more content than the TV documentary.

I´d like to say more, but I have to get up early, tomorrow I have take my subdermal implant chip for a check up in my local Bigbrother dealer.

:)

... a 35,000-year-old warrior named Ramtha

Holy shit! What's his secret? Does he work out, is it his diet, some combination of the two? This guy could make a boatload of cash if he wrote a self-help book. Hell, if I could make it to 1000, I'd be pretty happy. Is Ramtha his first name or his last name? What do Creationists think about some guy who was born before the beginning of time? Does Ramtha know God? If so, I wish the channeler chick would ask Ramtha what God is like in "person."

Well, I think there is a basic message that is being brushed aside, and in some cases over stated (by those that are critical of the "philosophy" of the film). That message is that people too often let their emotions define their realities. I don't think the idea here is that by thinking, you can completely alter the world around you, i.e. turn matter from one state to another. Instead, the message is that you can choose how you respond to things, and that you can control, at least to some degree, what happens in your life. The film gets hokey by trying to state a simple idea in a very fancy way. The quantum physics and water "experiment" seem like smoke and mirrors to me. A better synopsis of this concept for me at least, is in The Four Agreements. The author's name escapes me, but I think it eloquently states the intended message of Bleep. I would hope that most people are able to see the good message of the film while avoiding the fairly obvious gaffes. Unfortunately, I think most people will likely dismiss this as drivel, and that is in large part the responsibility of the film makers. By the way, most of you are taking each other way too personally. Let it go!

This film was such an extensive collection of nonsense, I couldn't believe anybody had ever given it a good review. Deep thoughts? Yeah, if you're 18 and smoking weed in a college dorm, reveling in the independence of it all (never mind the parents fronting the tuition).

If people can take away something useful from the film, great. I'd be surprised if any two people took away the same useful thing, though. In other words, people will take away what they bring, and nothing more.

Jeremy, try an experiment. Find a dozen people who haven't seen the movie, give them no hints, and show them the film. Again, giving no hints, have them each write down what they saw as the message of the movie. I'd be shocked if any two were even remotely similar.

Yeah but the blood cell singing Addicted To love was hyterical...

I have seen this film several times. I think the whole point of the film is being missed by its super-critics, those anti-supernaturalistically biased who think that science has all the answers. We scoff at many relgionists and well we should. However, both groups share many of the same dogmatic Jehovian like attitudes and decrees. I hardly coined the concept that science is a relgion. It sure acts like one! Science's legacy is for the most part no better than their counterpart in relgion; "We are little less than expendble metabolic units," is one of its great pronouncements. Sure makes a guy feel great after hearing that one. How far is that from being called a "dirty rotten sinner!" And then Adolph Hitler felt he was helping out evolution and implemetning Darwinian ideas when he initiated the extermination of the Jews. Yes, Science has given us the wonderful theory of evolution that virtually guarantees, under the guise of suvival of the fittest, we will blow every man women and child off the surface of he earth. " I have to prove I am better than you," is the essence of survival of the fittest. Isn't it just a re-statement of the us vs them mentality that so permeates this planet? Somebody has always got to be better than someone else. I for one am tired of some of scientific drivel. Love may be a cliche but I would rather experience it than be told to just go die when I am old and grey. The theory of evolution encourages us to play a bazar game of king of the mountain. "How about a game of global nuclear war" where everybody loses? How much sense does that make? We would do well to label everyone fit and end the charade.

The film is saying there is no struggle between good and evil--that we are all equal--we are all fit. How much sense then, does it make for equals to fight? Indeed what happens when two equal forces collide? Both of them are dstroyed. We can not win a battle with equals. That is the essence of MAD (mutually assured destruction). The idea that we can is directly implied by evolution's main premise survival of the fittest. That is essentially what war is. So, science's main pemise is nuts if you think human life is important. So far all our wars have ended with the two "eqauls" backing down. Someone decides to surrender rather than fight 'till everyone is dead. Our nuclear ability now precludes that scenario.

It was Epictetus the ancient stoic phylospher who said that, "People are disturbed not by things but the views they take of things." This film is saying the same thing.

Unfortunately much terminolgy from peoetry has migrated into prose, and science. Evolution is very often personified by scientists as if it were god. Evoluuion did this and evolutiong did that! Give me a break. Evolution is a concept an idea not a lifelike entity.
I don't think I am God. I think it best I avoid Jehovian like decrees calling things I don't agree with pure crap. Who died and left me or anyone else the purveyor of absolute truth? I have an opinion--my current version of the truth subject to revision.

Furthermore the cognitively oriented psycholgists are saying the same thing this movie is attempting to say. Extertnal events do not cause our emotions. Cognition serves as a mediating function between stimulus and effect (Burns 1980). In other words our thoughts about things cause our emotions. This of course is not widely beleived. But it can easily be deomonstrated to be true. Think about this; Suppose you are in an auto accident. You may see that as bad. But what does the guy that drives a tow truck think about that same event? How about the guy who owns a body shop? If emotions were caused by the event wouldn't they all be the same in each person observing the event? Such is not the case. The old addage sticks and stones makes my brak my bones but words will never hurt me contains the same message as the film also. If the film woke some of us up to take responsibility for our own emotinal well being that would be great. As it is people go around all day long saying things like "this" upset me annd "that" upset me. What is the reference for some external power controlling them (this or that or that)? Magic I guess. I think the questionable things in the film are tolerable--better than watching people murdered all day long in some hollywood film.

Fianlly, ad homien is one of the poorest arguments there is. Don't shoot the messenger because you don't agree with the message. Calling someone negative names is really tacky!

I'm only eighteen years old and I've struggled my entire spiritual life to find something concrete to believe in. First off, although I am young, I can easily spot an ignorrant by their fallacies. Nehring's comment about the "portly" woman is clearly over-zealous and is a terrible attempt to distract the reader from his apparent lack of a solid argument.

In my opinion the comments about "waiting for them to ask you to drink the Kool-Aid and join the mother ship" sound far more like something a modern day Christian Rock-loving Baptist would request than anyone from this movie. The whole point of the movie is to find a unique form of religion within yourself juxtaposed to the outside world, but not dependent upon it and its boundaries. This person has apparently missed that completely.

I would also love to know what benchmark is used to assert these "half lies." Pardon my french, but who the fuck are you to say what is truth and what isn't? Perhaps if more attention would have been paid and analysis given to the movie from a subjective point of view you could get out of your own way and expand your horizons. No one is asking you to join a movement or jump on a ship of some kind. All that is asked is for people to prove to themselves what they believe in. Perhaps your vehement opposition to the movie is a direct result of your lack of ability to prove to yourself that what you believe is true for you.

Comprehend your own reality, then fallacize about and attack everyone else's.

Thanks,

Joel

After reading a few articles on this movie, I had to wonder what people kept raving about. It sounds like a whole lot of junk.

Cord I must say that I concur with much of what you say. I think that the "external power" that you speak of is more a mass of human insecurities and lack of responsibility for actions taken than a "power." Although, I guess that could be construed as a formidable power, I suppose.

Our thoughts about things do create our emotions, in my opinion as well. The example you used is exquisite indeed. I think that one of the hardest things for humans to accomplish is to truly put themselves in the shoes of another. Granted, this ability is hypothetical, but if we knew what made ourselves tick a little better, I think that this lack of ability could become an exponential one and, although it would never actually happen, it could come infinitely close.

I strongly suggest reading the book "Childhood's End" in regards to your comment about human equality. I believe that part of the reasons that humans fight at all is that they are "equal" (for all intents and purposes, and I use that term loosely). Not to quibble, but if we were all equal and that DID negate a need for conflict...there would be no survival of the fittest.

I enjoy your perception.

Well, I've been channeling a 35,000 year-old woman by the name of Satsobek. Evidently, she was a beautician somewhere in present-day Turkey. She tells me that this Ramtha character is a real practical joker, and that Ramtha has been stringing Ms. Knight along with all these stories about his noble warrior past. Turns out that the only actual job that ole Ramtha ever had was as a barnacle scraper down at some dock on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. The rest of the time he spent begging for money and harrassing women, including Satsobek. She went on one date with the guy just to shut him up, and he got up to go to the men's room, never came back, and left Satsobek with the check. OK, sure, maybe she's making the whole thing up because maybe Ramtha dumped her. But it makes me wonder if we should really trust this guy.

Nehring et al:

Lighten up. Here's a Universal Law recently discovered by some Nobel Prize Winner: "It's impossible for something to be explicitly evil and dangerous when one is encouraged to eat popcorn and Milk Duds during said experience."

'kay?

Anyway, I thought it was a fun flick.

Maybe a side-effect was to cause one to think more about thinking -- and how one's attitude [often] influences one's "reality."

"You gots to get your mind right, Luke."

...and good advice from a moron or a 35,000 year old chubby white woman is still good advice.


Shark's Conclusion: Like the location of an electron or an emotion, Life and Universe are basically kinda fuzzy. Ain't a lot of 'either/ors' in the equation.

And on most days, I can choose to crank up the endorphins with a dose of Beethoven or Debussy -- or I can send a few gallons of cortisol coursing through my veins because I saw a "new age cult" film that doesn't fit into my current fundamentalist-anti-Fundamentalist Reality Tunnel; the former is a natural high; the latter is some nasty shit that is bad for me no matter how ya slice it.

Life is full of tough choices.

"You gots to get your mind right Luke."


PS: Don't argue with me -- and please don't respond. I don't want you as part of my reality -- and besides: I am right and you are wrong -- and I can prove it with paper and a #2 pencil.

Thanks in advance,
The Management

"It's impossible for something to be explicitly evil and dangerous when one is encouraged to eat popcorn and Milk Duds during said experience."

Go watch Triumph of The Will.

Hey Joel (and others)
I think you are absolutely right about that power I refered to. Some psychologists say that our mental life is 80% ficton--consisting of predictions of horrors that never happen etc... Shakespeare said it well when he said, "Much ado about nothing!" Nice to find a kindred spirit.

My favorite scene in this film is the one at the wedding. I have often wondered why any sane person would "fall" in love. I have been there several times in my life and in most cases it was unrequited. Next to depression, when love is unrequited, it is one of the most unpleasant experiences emotionally I have ever had.
Now,I know whoever or whatever wrote the program that runs in my mind set me (us) up. I am greatful to the producers for that scene. It explained so much to me. I was in an unrequited love circumstance when I saw the film--then it all made sense. After seeing the film I take being in love much less seriously. Like a toothache it most likely will pass. In the mean time I can think about the scene where the dances are squeezing the IV's and laugh my self silly! They sure got my experience with "love" down pat!

AS far as the 35,000 old man well... I found it a bit of a stretch. But then most of us beleived in Santa Claus at one time. I had no problems with the gifts I got at christmas even though it was really my parents that gave them to me. If someone is saying the truth maybe we should check it out from that point of view.

Now, most of us "beleive" many things that are not true. We see things that we are set up to see. The scene where the natives do not see Columbus's ship is another example of a profound truth. A practical application of that idea would be race. Scientifcally we know that there is no biologicl basis for the concept of race! Everyone is genetically 99.97% the same! According to scientists there are no sub-species within the human race. But we "see" the black race, the white, race, the yellow race and others that we describe as we miscegenated or as "mongrels!" We could just as well "create" a tall race, a short race a blue eyed race etc... In reality scientists say there are no clusters of characteristics that can be generalized to jusify the race concept. There are people with brown eyes in all "races." There are tall people and short people within alleged racial groups. In short we see what we have been brainwashed expect to see. As the many balls on Reggie's court depict we see individuals and try to make them all the same. In fact I have a real problem with the word "group." How can I "belong" to a group when I am an individual? It seems to me the two terms contradict themselves. Moreover do I belong to the group or does it belong to me? Think about it. It generally contradicts the idea that people can own other people or in someway be responsable for what they do. How is our contemporary "beleif" in "major" differences between people when there simply aren't any any different than beleiving that there is a 35,000 year old man name Ramantha that chanels through Ms. Knight? I have a tendancy to be skeptical about it but not being member of the diety, I just don't know (diety does have it's priviledges). For me whether she chanels or has made it all up is not a problem. What came out of her mouth made sense to me. If I were God I sure wouldn't be all that concerned about one little planet in all the trillions that exist! Kinda like Bill Gates losing a dime out of his pocket and spending the rest of his life trying to find it. Please!

The truth is there are no major differences between us that we need to fight over. I don't want to be crass but we all eat sleep drink and go to the bathroom.

The film makes many salient points including another one that I figured out some time ago. Our body is the house we (the observer) lives in not us. My body gets old but my mind only sems to acqure more information. Age seems to be irelevant in the human mind.

Seriously i think it best that we attack the ideas that we disagree with rather than the people that formulate them. Name calling, imputing motive etc are diversions in our search for the truth (whatever that is).

I appreciate the stimulus of other thinking beings. I just wish we would give up our seemingly endless quest to play good guy--bad guy and just get on with it. Maybe I am nuts but I think there is a place for all of us. Someone older than Ramantha (an infinite being) told me so. So there! That was my "credibility" trump card! lol

Anyway I enjoy everyone's comments and perspectives. Mine is just another one of many.

Cord

The most ignorant person is the person that does not realize he can be ignorant

Hey, comment 35 reminds me of a movie! Mystery Men, in fact. Did you see it? Yeah, one guys "superpower" was to state incredibly obvious and useless syllogisms at random times.

"You do not see because you do not choose to see."

"The most self-righteous person is the person who does not realize he can be self-righteous."

Things like that.

Anyway, use your minds. This isn't a war between science and something else. It's a movie full of outright lies that people swallow without doubt because "it must be true, it's in a movie!"

It's crap.

Thank you Phillip for telling me the film was crap. I always wanted to meet god and now I have. I mean you no hostilitiy. But 6.5 billion other people are auditioning for the position of god also. As I infered in an earlier post science has yet to respond to Adolph Hitler and his gang for mis-use of their theory of Evolution. I think they owe the Jews and the Ruissians an apology. But then because they are mute on the subject many scientists probably think Adolph was was right (scary). Adolh didn't survive did he? Does that mean he wasn't the fittest after all? Silly me?

See the problem I have with the non thinking is they don't spot their in congurencies. Science does not want there to be a God. That is not scientific. To be sure there is no God you would have to be God. After all God could be hiding somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy or anywhere else in the universe. I presume you have not been to outer space in search of Him? And if you told me you had, I think I would believe Ms Knight chanels a 35,000 year old man named Ramanth more readily. I can't prove to you there is a God. Truthfuly if He exists He exists. If He dose not, He dose not. But science has decided there isn't one because they don't want there to be one. That's not scientific at all--at least not according to their own scientific premise. With nothing other than your opinion you make a god like decree that the movie is crap. Wow that is grandiose. Relgion and Science share many of the same characteristics--dogmatism being one of them.

I think it best that we be accountable to each other and not some inaginary forces like science, government, astrology, magic, relgion, etc, and even god if you will. Besides, mankinds issues are with mankind not God.
Threfore it makes no difference whether He exists or not. If we blow ourselves off the surface of the earth it will be because we refused to see our own equality and how stupid it is for equal forces to fight each other.

Make that 6,499,999 people running for God - I've stopped trying. I figure I can't be God since I'm not omniscient enough to figure out the points behind most of the comments to my reivew.

Hint: some comments are basically point-free.

for Victor: i like ice cream, do you skate?

as for the "god" job...not me man...i don't wanna hafta deal with those kind of hours...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Cord, I've been trying to understand your ramblings, but the spelling and grammar are so poor, that I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly. But I can tell that you're in possession of a lot of ignorant ideas that you picked up from other ignoramuses. I'm not going to take the time to explain things to you because I know your type. Just one thing though, because you're as annoying as all hell.

As I infered in an earlier post science has yet to respond to Adolph Hitler and his gang for mis-use of their theory of Evolution.

First, you mean "imply," not "infer."

Second, who is "science." Science has yet to respond .... . What the hell are you talking about?

Third, you're an idiot if you are implying that scientists are responsible for Hitler.

But then because they are mute on the subject many scientists probably think Adolph was right (scary).

Fourth, you're a first-class idiot.

Now, crawl back in your hole.

Warmest Regards,
Bored with Cord

You know you are right god. Sorry to have dissapointed you.
I think I was one of your mistakes. I am a first class idiot. It's sad to know you think so poorly of the rest of us. Yeah I am terrible at gramar-spoiled by spell check on Ms word. I am just a piece of shit so I will go back in my hole.
But I wonder how many "types" of people are there? And what are they like? I always wanted to know?

Good luck with the rest of your life.

Hi everyone

Im not mad at most peoples negitive commenst about the film because its not expected that all of you get what they are talking about. Ive gone through therapy and can attest to eveything in the film and how it has improved my life and the way I live and treat people , also the things i attract into my life. Anyways I hope someone can come along one day and maybe open your eyes to looking at things through a new lens like Ive been so greatfully helped with. Have a good one .
Love Duncan

Agreed. What a bloody silly film. In fact more than silly, quite dangerous - with the capability to persuade those with little common sense by blinding them with bad science. "Ooohh, it must be right, that man's a professor! I am God!"
lmao! These guys are like those biologists who set out to prove creationism by "scientifically" demonstrating the "theory" of evolution is flawed. It was all very convincing to the non-educated too. I guess some people just have a need for spirituality and will pick and choose any tools which help them to their apparent enlightenment, no matter how blindingly false they may be. Scientific fact!

And to the guy who started saying scientists should apologise for Hitler: what the hell are you taking??!

Quite apart from such a ludicrous thought that scientists are some kind of blanket body that should take collective responsibility for something that took place several generations ago, there was never any real scientific basis for the theories Hitler adapted to suit his own beliefs. Dammit I'm going to have to try and explain this. "Survival of the Fittest" is a cliche from the theory of Natural Selection. However you have to get out of your head the idea that "fit" means the strongest, fastest, best looking etc. It is merely a word used to describe a successful combination of genetic traits. And it is only by having a wide diversity of genetic traits that the likelihood of surviving diseases, predators and environmental hazards is increased. In other words the more variety we have as a species, the higher chance of survival we have. You only have to look at the list of extinct species - many suffered a genetic bottleneck at some point in their history... i.e. they were reduced to such small numbers that the survivors produced offspring with very little genetic difference. Becuase of this lack of genetic diversity, any disease that their similar genetic makeup was susceptible to would wipe the species out. Any species with wide diversity is much more likely to have some genetic differences that confer resistance to certain diseases. I guess you could also use climate change as a simple example. In fact I will: if there was an extreme rise in temperature, the genes giving better resistance to heat would survive, but if there was an extreme drop in temperature the genes giving resistance to cold would survive. However it is only by covering both ends of the spectrum that we could be guaranteed survival. Therefore ethnic diversity and global genetic movement can only ever, scientifically, be seen as healthy.

So like many other of Hitler's interpretations, his understanding of genetics was sorely misguided!

Good for you Duncan I feel the same.

And Hi Phil. Thanks for your lucid explanation of survival of the fittest. I undersand the idea much better.

I am not a scientist, so maybe I am wrong about this. Am I correct in thinking that mutation is the correct mechanism for "natural" selection? I hear scientists saying that DNA is code and contains information. They say it is a language and language systems seem to behave similarly throughout nature. If that is so how would the following sentence be explained when it is spoken audibly. Note; the words in question are in quotes and in their phonetic spelling. "Rit" the "rit" spelling the word "rit" on the "rit" side of the paper. I.e. Write the right spelling of the word "rit" on the right, side of the paper (write, right, right, right,). It would seem to me that the meaning of the words changes several times in the sentence. In one position the word seems ambiguous. If information can be coded how does this happen? The code seems to mean different things based on location in the sentence (giving some credence to the quantum theory-the meaning tends to change depending on how it is looked at). A glass for example can be half full, half empty or have the exact amount of ingredients for the cake I am making (four ounces). It seems to me that information is only available in intelligent systems. In other words code is really an elicitor of information rather than a carrier of it. What I am saying is that there is no "information" in code. Therefore an increase in the quantity of it or the re- arrangement of it would tend to evoke different meaning in the receiver of the code (or confusion). It would only provoke miss-communication. The meaning seems to be given by the observer.

If I understand Communication, it requires a sender/ receiver/ processor, code, transmission lines and a receiver/ transmitter; processor on the other end. I am trying to say this with as few words as possible. When we "learn" language we "learn" to asign agreed on meanings to certain sounds (code). If I conclude correctly that has nothing to do with code itself. Since the meaning is processed in the receiver, meaning to words (code) would have to be mutually agreed upon (as a cooperative effort--two way communication).

The word g-i-f-t evokes different meanings depending on the "language" being written or coded. The same written code evokes the meaning "present"(not location) in "English" and poison in "German." Again if information van be coded into the code how could the same code represent two or often several different meanings? I would appreciate you comments Phil?
--Cord

Hi Cord, I happened to run by this blog when I heard "what the bleep..." actually had fake scientists. When I saw the movie I thought some of the ideas on consciousness were salient; however, I had a feeling most the "physicists" were actually fake. Anyways, as a working biologist I'm going to answer a few of your questions on DNA since you seem just a bit misguided (like most of America). I'd also like to commend Phil for the cogent interpretation of survival of the fittest; and for pointing out how it has been mispercieved over this century.

First of all, your questions about DNA fall into the realm of linguistics and are unfounded. When biologists describe DNA as a "language" or a "code", that is simply an analogy that helps you to understand the nature of DNA. DNA actually codes for proteins. Proteins are the structural material that make up your cells as well as the enzymes that catalyze metabolic reactions to keep you going when you eat a burger. So basically, DNA (the genome) codes for "how to make a human" or "how to make a rat".The language of DNA is in the form of 4 chemical units referred to as "A" "G" "C" and "T". Different combinations of these 4 chemical units can code for an infite amount of proteins and variations.

When a mutation happens on DNA that codes for a specific protein, there can be various effects: the protein can become useless, the protein could have lowered function, and the protein can improve function or gain a new function. This is significant because individual proteins interact with each other like individual links in a chain-link fence. For instance, one "path" on the chain links could lead to hair color. An increase in the protein for this color would make someone "dark". A mutation that lowers causes it dissapear would cause someone to be "light". This is when natural selection comes into play. If "lightness" were beneficial enough to cause someone to survive or have more children, then this random mutation would increase in frequency. This is where I will stop cause i'm sure your eyes are glazing over. If you are further interested, please check out a book on molecular biology or evolution/genetics.

Okay, wasn't the response I was expecting, interesting argument though.

First let me see if I understand you correctly. You are basically saying that because words can have multiple meanings which rely on the intelligence of the receiver to decode and interpret the intended message; and because DNA has been likened to a language, that DNA is not the building block or originator of all that we are but only a basic toolset which depends on our true self (the observer?) to make use of it.

Well, let me raise two immediate issues I have with that theory:

Firstly, the description of DNA as a language is a simile, used mainly as a descriptive method of introduction for those who know very little on the subject. Like all similes and metaphors if you are too literal and delve too deep they begin to fall apart. Saying that "DNA is like a language so there must be multiple interpratations like words" could be similar to saying "a dog is a mammal like a cow so it must eat grass". DNA is like a language in that it contains all the information needed to describe an organism. There probably are ways of stretching the analogy but that doesn't mean all things connected with language can be matched to genetics!

Secondly, a bit of knowledge of the basic genetic mechanisms shows it to be a little more complicated than just code; or at least it's a very complicated code - much more so than any language! However, if you really want to flog the language analogy, the Human Genome Project does show up further similarities. You need to understand that it is not the genes which bring about changes in an organsism it is the proteins which are encoded by them - okay I don't know how much microbiology you already know but genes are basically short sections of DNA which help piece amino acids together in a certain order. Proteins are built up out of these amino acids and the order of amino acids gives rise to a very specific shape for the protein. It is this shape (and its molecular attraction/repulsion qualities, but let's not start getting into organic chemistry!) which gives them their vital roles since it allows them to lock into places where only they can fit (I won't go into all the incredible uses this gives rise to but it is well documented). Genes can overlap each other, and may need to be used in combination with other genes in order to encode certain proteins. This is all fairly basic biology and has been known for a good 40 years. It was therefore believed that differences in genes and the subsequent differences in proteins would be in accordance with differences between species. However through the Genome Project we have found that humans and mice share nearly all the same genes (which encode the specific proteins). In fact it is thought most mammal genes are also the same. However they do show great difference in their organisation - ie where the genes are located within the genome (or complete length of DNA). This moving about of genes through evolution gives rise to different levels of certain proteins and different orders of construction for certain complexes. In other words it is not the language which makes us but where and when its descriptions are interpreted.

lol sorry, read cords post yesterday and came back to write the response today (knew it would take a while!) - didn't check to see it had already been replied to :)

Thanks guys. I now understand alot more. I appreciate your non-patornizing explanation.

Yeah most bad ideas are good ideas carried to ridiculous extremes. But what do you guys think of Quantum Physics?

Hey Cord,
I was actually thinking about your little sender/reciever processor interpretation of DNA and wanted to encourage you because in some respects you actually are somewhat right.

DNA is the basic code that holds information. The "sender" of this information is actually RNA. RNA is a variant form of DNA that is copied through paired interactions. The subsequent RNA (called messenger RNA) is then transmitted to "reciever" molecules which are another variant form of RNA called "tRNA's". tRNA's then attach amino acids into protein chains thru a processor molecule called a ribosomal complex. Thus, the "processor" can be likened the human mind which interprets the chain of messages and coding. So in some ways, you are actually quite right! Continue to ask questions no matter how misguided they may start off, in the long run you will learn more and not suffer from the malaise that is a rigid mind.

As far as the ideas of Quantum Physics in this movie most are not grounded in any scientific method. However, alot of the ideas on spirituality and consciousness are quite appealing. The problem with most of the "scientific evidence" the movie presents is that most are untestable. For instance, string theory, though the gargantuan front runner of modern physics, is an untestable hypothesis. The idea that there are 11 dimensions merely has to do with the number of variables in the universe that would be required to create a mathematical equation that would explain all natural phenomena in the universe (including dark matter and black holes). However, present technology has no way of testing this. Some quixotic physics labs are trying to "create" other dimensions. Some are experimenting with particle colliders or measurements of gravity. Either way, none are sensitive enough to detect the effects.

What this all means is that though "ramtha" may believe we can alter the rules of the universe, there is no testable way to this. And if this were true, there is no possible way to percieve beacause we are limited to 5 senses and 4 dimensions.

It is actually quite amusing the way this movie orders the logic in order to get the audience to come to a rather farfetched conclusion. First logic, science explains most natural phenomenon. Second, science (actually psychology)has shown that we can control our internal perceptions of the world. And therefore, since quantum particles (science) makes up people and people control their destinies, then people can control the laws of the universe. It may not be explicitly stated, but it is certainly implied.

I would also like to state that "jon" (the jesus freak) scares the bejesus out of me. To actually state that the idea of evolution is somekind of devilish trickery makes me want to become completely cynically about where this country is going. Furthermore, to asininely say that evolutionists don't know the most "current" scientific evidence makes me wonder what kinda rock most of these people live under. Current scientific evidence continues to confirm and validate the idea of evolution (and not necessarily Darwinian evolution). Evolution simply means change over time (though dictionary terms may say change into a higher form, this is not the scientific definition). All evidence shows that living organisms are related to each other.. Therefore, evolution is a working "fact" and not a theory. Ever wonder why people don't question the theories of gravity or theorems in calculus, even though they are all working theories?

One last thing, just because some people believe the world arised from natural phenomena does not discount them from still seeing the world as beautiful and miraculous. Only the most chauvinist of people can possibly believe that without this world being created by a higher power somehow means we are meaningless automatons living in a world of shit.

Thanks David

So would I be correct in assuming that RNA us alive and...Because there is DNA in a dead plant or animal. What part is alive? I guess I don't exactly know how to phrase the question. What constitutes aliveness?

We seem to have a philospical life as well as a physical one. How would evolution cause this philosphical life? It appears to be all over the place. I mean a belief to me is kinda like a switch in your mind you push on to make something true or false-a dichotomy. It seems one person's truth is another person's error. "I beleive this is true." "I blieive this is not true." It all seems so arbitrary.
One other thing I was thiking about.. It seems there is a "program" running in the human mind and there is some truth to the idea of mind over matter. We tell our hand to move by our thoughts and it does it.

Thanks for the ecouragment David. I appreciate it.

this forum is a perfect example of when a person's 2 cents turns into a fortune.

All of you smoke too much marijuana.

That is all.

Too many people in this world are ignorant. You can lump Pagans in this group now.

I'm not sure they were out of the group to begin with.

This is a movie which presents a new THEORY. No one ever said in the film "this is all completely infallible, go out and join my cult". From reading numerous negative reviews of the movie, I can see that many people have a big problem with the lady channeling the 35,000 year old warrior. I've watched the movie 3 times and I can't remember anyone ever even mentioning that in the movie. I may be wrong, but in any case she was one of numerous experts in numerous fields of study. Some fields of study you may not agree with (like the reincarnation lady), but they study none the less. You should not watch this movie unless you are willing to be objective. I'm covinced most people who hated this movie made up their minds the very second an idea was introduced that jolted their ego. From reading reviews a lot of people are likely to think that this film tries to convince us that we are our own Gods. That statement was made once in the entire movie and you can probably guess who said it. The "portly, middle aged, woman" who is "channeling a 35,000 year old warrior". Their was more talk of "God" in this movie, as an ultimate observer/creator than anything about us being Gods ourselves. The whole idea that so many people are so childishly upset by it should make you want to watch it. The mere fact that people are so adament about all of this THEORY being hopeless rubbish reveals a certain amount of fear within those individuals. Information cannot hurt you, acquire as much of it as you can. Read the reviews, watch the movie, read the reviews again.


"When people talk, listen completely. Most people never listen."
-Ernest Hemingway



"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self confidence."
-Robert Frost

So for all those religious fanatics out there. How has your love for god justified the killing of people in his name or your narrowminded notions? Does your definition of love for god mean spreading your own idealism... your narrowminded ideals have created a cage in which you delude yourself. You put god in a box of what you can conceive and spread it around without consideration of fellow man. Your a virus. You do not speak for god... he can speak for himself so stfu.

Emancipator,

"Your a virus" Actually, you should spell it "You're a virus". Offering your low minded ranting is one thing. One can't expect someone of your temperament to bother with history. However, we should expect you'd spell correctly.

When you mention narrow-minded ideals, are you speaking of the New Age Kool-Aid drinkers, Christians, Jews or the secularists?

Yo!!, yo check, check it!!, quantum physics is so crazy, makes me so lazy, tim thomas thinks kenyon martin is fagazy, what the fuck does fagazy mean, thats a crazy word, whats up big bird, go suck on a fuckin turd.

(R&b singer)
OOooOOooOO yea yeaaaaa quantum physics!!, girl you look soo sweet toniaaate, come home with me baby!!, i'll shower you with gifts and sexings all nite looooong baby!!, yeaa yeaaaaa quantum!!, oOOoo yeaaa yeaaaaaa girl

Ok, I just watched "What the Bleep ..." and being a neuroscientist by profession, I guess I feel obligated to say a few words. Maybe I need to say something, not so much because of the film, but because of the comments I have read from other viewers.

The film seems to have polarized opinions. The film itself, I found rather innocuous. Knowing the science, I found some of it misinformation, other stuff, just plain obvious, and other stuff again, interesting enough to hold my attention in fits and bursts.

Misinformation examples: No, electrical signals do not pass across the synapse. No, the hypothalamus does not pulsate. No, peptides are not released to "match" our emotional state. I spend a considerable amount of time working with physicists, and have read a large body of literature on quantum physics as a result.

My conclusion about the central message of the film - that we create our own reality (what's new?) - has been distorted. Yes, most of what is matter is empty space - but because it occurs at an atomic and sub-atomic level, it results in solid matter. The concept that we can be in two separate places more than an atom's width apart is ludicrous.

That believing to the core (as apart from the smear analogy) we can walk on water, I think is wishful thinking. That we can change our minds by sheer thought power, is only partly true. Yes we can overcome fears, inhibitions, change our attitudes, but can we change our basic personality type? I haven't seen it happen, or heard of it happening that wasn't a case where someone became their natural personality type after first trying to be who they weren't designed as. Can a homosexual person become straight by sheer thought power when it is their brain that determines their sexual orientation? Of course not.

This film tries to separate itself from the New Age types, but in fact is just another New Age blurb. Sorry. The water experiment. Has anyone replicated it? Doubt it. The Washington thought experiment? Where's the control group?

Having said that, this film will obviously appeal to the uneducated and those into fuzzy thinking. Nothing wrong with that, actually. It's better than promoting violence and sexual repression. Nothing wrong with creating warm fuzzy feelings even if the method is flawed. But overall, not impressed. Just amused.

Hey somebody said next life....when the sun burns out..where does your next life go?

har har

Hey! is there anybody in this world that does not search for happiness in its life?....

I think the reality we live in, is not much encouraging most of the time. So why dont give it a try? if it works for you then it works for you! if not, well try something else....

But then again, who holds the ultimate truth?....

I think only we do!....an attempt to give people hope in their selves and try to get rid of emotional addictions is an encouraging thing! even if it comes from a 35,000 year old spirit through this lady (which by the way, we all would need to meet personally to establish our own judgement)....much better than most evening news!

Maybe is the doubt! if we doubt we may fail!

I wish you all happiness in your endeavors....I suppose understanding is neverending thats why is so fascinating....but maybe the most real reality for all is that we need to wake up and see we have all something great to give, to do, to see, to smell, to touch, to hear....does that make sense? I believe for most people it does....

Lets try and do whatever is in our hands (and minds!) to make a better reality for all of us!

Cheers

ps: forgive my english, but I am mexican and well is not my first language!

Talk about miricles, well a lot of scientists do not believe in miricles [so they say] Now one of the subscribers to this chat has informed us that a single cell is more complex that New York [or some such metropolise] It appears to be well designed oops that is a dirty word to the evoled scientist because it was not designed it [the original first cell] came out of non complex material by accident and chance! They cannot see that, compared with the claim that an eternal God created this cell using His omiscient Logos designed it, they have presented us with a greater miricle.
"In the beginning accident and chance created the first complex cell with the appearance of design"
this is certainly a great miricle.
Thank you for staying with the amazment of this great non theological miricle!

Hi, call me simpleminded or whatever. I've been reading the book "What the Bleep..." and find it exceptional and stimulating. Whenever there are people thinking new thoughts there's going to be strong reactions, from revulsion to total acceptance. I am neither as I'm taking it for face value and allowing it to challenge my own power of thought and evaluating the status quo compared to what can be.

I don't understand or agree with everything but I greatly enjoy its exploration of consciousness, the quantum world and the great questions it asks.

I find Ramtha a bit creepy, but I said to myself, OK, just look at what she's saying and forget about the channeling stuff. Is it logical? Does it make sense? Is it truthful? Of course, I'm asking the same questions of everyone in the book!

This is a great book. I found the movie interesting, too, and entertaining, but not as stimulating as the book. There I can ponder at my own pace, read a little, set it down, think about what I've read, then come back for more. That's the beauty of it.

Clay

Well, I have had a near death experience and the movie describes the experience exactly...it was in 1988 and I came back with Knowledge of the Universe and, yes, God, was to be found in quantum phyics. The subject was hard to find but I spent the year reading about it to understand my experience. Your loss..
Mary