Skip to content

>When Scientists Go To the Chopra Side: Lanza Take Two — Glowworms aren’t as sexy as bass

January 20, 2010

>Lanza’s back at Huff with his latest piece, “Judgment Day is Coming: Science Suggests Justice is Inescapable.” Sometimes the absurd is inescapable as well. Lanza, having thrown out all critical reasoning, or having none left over after all his quantum selves were through sorting through the skills box, has shifted over to Chopra-sized woo. Must be more money in quantum mysticism than in stem cell research. Lanza waxes poetical in his new piece where he attempts to show that science will make sure the meek will indeed inherit the earth.

“Will kind people be rewarded for their good deeds?”

Yes, because this is a major focus of science. It’s such a testable concept.

“Will the wicked be punished?”

Oh, for frak’s sake, I hope so. I can’t wait to see what he says science has to say. I mean, it’d be so much easier if we could all rest easy knowing the dirtbags of the here and now will get their comeuppance some day.

“Yes, according to a new interpretation of recent experiments.”

Thank the quantum realities. The scientists have done some experiments and shown it to be so. So much better than taking the bible (any religion, pick one) at its word.

“Although our science is too primitive for us to fully comprehend, there is a direct and proportional price to pay for any act of cruelty or injustice.”

You know, this man is supposedly this great mind like Einstein. He says so, anyways. If our science is so primitive, seems to me that we’d undertand. I think he screwed up here and meant that our science is too primitive for us to understand that there is blah blah the rest of the junk. Doesn’t matter, though, as either way this is stupid. If our science is too primitive for us to get how this proportionality of justice being meted out, then we don’t in fact know this to be true. It’s still pie-in-the-sky bullshit. If our science is too primitive for us to understand the science, well, that’s just ass-backwards.

“Science suggests that there are consequences to our actions that transcend our ordinary, classical way of thinking.”

Prove it. Unless he has a friend named Science? You know, this general non-specific appeal to authority is frikking annoying.

“Emerson, it turns out, was right: ‘Every crime is punished, every virtue rewarded, every wrong redressed, in silence and certainty.'”

Name drop. Look at me, I’m well read. And mystical and shit.Why’s everything being handled with in silence? Too bad Lanza didn’t do this silently. In his head alone was the best place for this drivel. I bet he’s in an altered state of consciousness when he’s writing this stuff.

“I remember fishing on a warm summer night. Now and then I could feel the vibrations along the line linking me with the life prowling about the bottom. At length I pulled some bass, squeaking and gasping into the air. It was a puzzle to feel a tug, and to be conscious in that precise moment of a part of me, which, as it were, was not a part of me, but scale and fin, circling the hook, slow to strike.”

Tell me he wasn’t high. Dare you. Slow to strike what? I am me, stoned on the side of the pond. I am the bass at the bottom of the pond too stupid to not take the bait. I am a masochist since I am both me, stoned on the bank, and the dumbass bass with the hook in the side of my mouth.

“Surely this is what Spinoza, the great philosopher, meant when he contended that consciousness cannot exist simply in space and time, and at the same time is aware of the interrelations of all parts of space and time. In order to have knowledge of a pout or a pickerel, I must have somehow been identical with them.”

Yeah, probably not, He probably didn’t mean you and the bass. I think Lanza uses this stuff to pick up women. Think about it. Spout that stuff off, have them confused as to what the hell pouts and pickerels are, then segue into how he understands not only the fish, having been one with them, but with the broad he’s trying to hook up with as well. We’re all one, baby, interconnected. Space, time, you, me, all our quantum realities. Picture it, baby, an infinite number of yous and mes all getting it on together in all possible ways. We live on forever, baby, in a continual groove.

“But how can this be? In experiments, it has been repeatedly shown that a single particle can be at two places at the same time. See the loon in the pond or the dandelion in the field. How deceptive is the space that separates them and makes them solitary. They are the subjects of the same reality that interested John Bell, who proposed the experiment that answered the question of whether what happens locally is affected by nonlocal events.”

Yeah, really. I mean, pretend I’m not some tanked babe in a bar you’re trying to shag, but someone who likes logic, reason and evidence. Sell me, Lanza. We’re one and I’m a pout. I see the loon by the pond, if you catch me. Ack. The loon and the dandelion: one with the pout and the pickerel.

“Experiments from 1997 to 2007 have shown that this is indeed the case. Physicist Nicolas Gisin sent entangled particles zooming along optical fibers until they were seven miles apart. But whatever action they took, the communication between them happened instantaneously. Today no one doubts the connectedness between bits of light or matter, or even entire clusters of atoms. They’re intimately linked in a manner suggesting there’s no space between them, and no time influencing their behavior. In fact, just last year, Gisin announced a new twist on his experiment; in this case, he thinks the results will be visible to the naked eye.”

Le sigh. Instantaneous communication doesn’t suggest a lack of space, nor would the twin photon experiments show that Lanza is a pout and a pickerel, although reading Lanza’s take on Gisin’s work does reveal him to be off.

“In the same way, there is a part of us that is connected to the fish in the pond. It is the part that experiences consciousness, not in our external embodiments but in our inner being.”

So we’ve got this hidden consciousness that we’re not aware of, and it connects us to the fish.

“And although we identify ourselves with our thoughts and affections, it is an essential feature of reality that we experience the world piece by piece.”

These two ideas, that we define ourselves by our thoughts and feelings and that we don’t experience the world as a whole, are not mutually exclusive. There’s no need for the although, and it has nothing to do with some inner being connected to a damn fish, either.

“Everything you experience is a whirl of information occurring in your head; according to Biocentrism, space and time are simply the mind’s tools for putting it all together. However solid and real the walls of space and time have come to look, there is a part of us that is no more human than it is animal − even the fish, sporting there in the pond, a part of us unwittingly tempted by a bunch of worms strung on a thread.”

By definition human are animals. Mammals to be specific. Yes, our perceptions are created by the sorting of sensations into meanigful bits. I guarantee you there is no manner of thought-changing that will make that very real and solid wall not cause a significant amount of pain and damage to your fist should you put it through it.
Maybe you’re tempted by the worms. I wouldn’t try that bit on the tanked broad at the bar. I think it would be a real sinker.

“As parts of such a whole there is justice.”

That does not follow from the drivel above. I get it. Since you are both the stoned guy on the pond and the dumbass bass at the bottom, your cruelty in trying to hook the bass for sport bites you in the cheek as the bass. What comes around goes around and since we are one, you’re getting fucked over by me is equivalent. See?

“The bird and the prey are one.”

Told you. That’s his idea of justice. It’s not real justice. It’s metaphorical because we are all one, man.

“This was the world that confronted me that warm summer night. From the shore I could see the shiners dimpling the water with their tails in the moonlight. A bug furrowed the water, making a conspicuous ripple, which the fishes darted at. Only two diverging lines stood between them and natural justice.”

Whoa, man. Wait. If you think bugs getting eaten by fish is natural justice, maybe you need to define justice.

“Non-separability,” said physicist Bernard d’Espagnat, “is now one of the most certain general concepts in physics.”

Lanza is too lazy to tell us where this quote comes from, but it’s one he loves. He used it in his 2007 “A New Theory of Everything.” He also uses the pond, too, but a glowworm instead of a bass:

“In this same sense, there is a part of us connected to the glowworm by the pond near my house. It is the part that experiences consciousness, not in our external embodiments but in our inner being. We can only imagine and recollect things while in the body; this is for sure, because sensations and memories are molded into thought and knowledge in the brain. And although we identify ourselves with our thoughts and affections, it is an essential feature of reality that we experience the world piece by piece.”

Oh wait, he rehashes quite a bit of his 2007 piece, doesn’t he? Not very original. Gonna need a new pick up line. But back to this “new” piece:

“We suppose ourselves to be a pond; and if there is any consequence to our actions, if there is any justice, it must approach upon these shores. Yet that night, I sensed the union that the one man and creature has with the other. The fish and I, the criminal and the victim, are one and the same.”

Are you kidding me? The criminal and victim are the same? They are one and consquently, when the criminal engages in the behavior he is reaping justice since he’s the same as the victim? Bullshit. Drivel. And bunk.

“Justice is built into the fabric of nature. Make no mistake about it: it will be you who looks out the eyes of the victim. Or you can be the recipient of kindness — whichever you choose.”

No, justice is not. And no, the criminal as he acts upon his victim is not his victim. Nice. So, if you’ve been a victim of violence, it’s because you chose it. I can’t believe he didn’t just stop there, you know? He keeps going, though. Who else can he piss off?

“The problem is that even web scientists are just earthworms beginning to grasp the non-linear dimensionality of nature. Heinz Pagels, the esteemed theoretical physicist, once stated: ‘If you deny the objectivity of the world, unless you observe it and are conscious of it (as most physicists have), then you end up with solipsism − the belief that your consciousness is the only one.'”

Earthworms aren’t grasping anything. Victims choosing to be victimized. Web scientists are earthworms and mumbo jumbo.

“This may not unsettle you, except perhaps on a warm moonlit night with a fish gasping for life at the end of your rod. I knew then, at that moment, that Pagel’s conclusion was right. Only it wasn’t my consciousness that was the only one, it was ours. According to biocentrism, our individual separateness is an illusion. Remember the words of Omar, who “never called the One two,” and of the old Hindu poem: ‘Know in thyself and All one self-same soul; banish the dream that sunders part from whole.'”

Rod? Dude, was it the fish or the glowworm?

“There was no doubt; that consciousness which was behind the youth I once was, was also behind the mind of every animal and person existing in space and time. “There are,” wrote Loren Eiseley, noted anthropologist, “very few youths today who will pause, coming from a biology class, to finger a yellow flower or poke in friendly fashion at a sunning turtle on the edge of the campus pond, and who are capable of saying to themselves, ‘We are all one − all melted together.'”

Can’t imagine why. Quantum mechanics is so melty. Did you know that?

“Yes, I thought, we are all one. I let the fish go. With a thrash of the tail, I disappeared into the pond.”

Oh, but that we could wish and dream and hope for that with that thrash Lanza disappeared.

Advertisements
3 Comments
  1. January 21, 2010 12:34 am

    >Oh well done kim!! "A friend named science"..coffee spew.hahahahahaha!

  2. January 21, 2010 1:48 pm

    >Water through the nose, now Kathleen has had a coffee spew. Kim, you're on a roll.As you know, I'm kinda airy fairy sometimes, but the "you choose to be a victim or not" stuff I've never understood. What is he talking about?? On some level I'm a person who believes things happen for a reason [which in my case takes far more explanation than such a trite, overused phrase can really convey], but the crap here about "the criminal and the victim are one", and that we choose to receive violence from others, actually offends me!

  3. January 22, 2010 12:25 am

    >Airy fairy is nice. 🙂 And finding meaning in the things that happen to us is eminently practical. Buddhist teachings make a lot of sense to me, as well.If I thought Lanza weren't trying to make a buck as well as hook up, I could almost forgive him for making a total mess of quantum physics to make folks believe there is no death, no time, no space, and that the criminal gets his just rewards because he is one with the victim (that part's really icky). Lanza doesn't even have Chopra's charisma. See, Chopra could tell me just about any of that minus the criminal/victim, and that accent along with the charisma would make it worth the listening. I'd sit there dreamy eyed and listen. 🙂 Well, that's until Chopra went and got all bitter.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: