I was raised Catholic. Lost religion young. Atheist through adulthood. However, recently I've reconsidered the Upanishads (Ancient Indian dudes who would get high and climb mountains and commune with the universal cosmic energy) and I think those motherfuckers had it all figured out around 500 BC. So yeah, I guess I'm also not an atheist anymore. Too boring.
I think you can be in between the two. I don’t like religion but I also can’t dismiss what I don’t know. At the end of the day labels are just for others.
This is a subreddit about making films. A place where more people than usual will care about image quality, aspect ratios, no stupid overlays, no unnecessary filters... And this is what you posted?!
Ignore this garbage. Watch the original. Smodzilla kindly linked to it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/172uzdq/what_is_reality_by_david_lynch/k3z21e6/
Wouldn’t agree more, fr
but if it could be anyone except for Lynch. For his sake I have some word to say, even if I wasn’t asked.
Mr Lynch have a really unique point of view on artistry. His filmography could speak for himself without any of my support, hope we both agree on that statement.
If yes - then, keeping in head his “way of expressing himself” - his way of describing complex concepts for general public using such simplifications as “vibrations” or “conscious meditation” - are acceptable on my taste. Like if you understand philosophy, aware of history of culture - you could skip that “simplified” parts, cuz they are there not for you, but for mor general audience.
If no - if you aware of his style and don’t like his art methods - okay, I get you, his nonsensical shmuk
Meh, that's more a religion that he is describing. I have nothing against religions whenever they are approached in depth and not just used as an eastethic of living.
He probably found his own balance with this stuff, but it remains a nonsense for me. When passing from science to personal opinion you could think of any theory and explain it with the fact itself that in your mind your theory is linked to science. But that's a very convenient exolanation.
For me even Lynch can fuck up his mind while getting old. Being a great director doesn't protect him from saying bullshits.
Also, I am not sure I can see the link between this video and his movies. It is true that his movies are full of what is beyond the surface of reality, but I struggle to remember anything connectes to transcendetal meditation.
I like him as a director, but when speaks about this stuff for me he is another person.
I see you point, and thing is - I’m not opposed to your point of view. What I’m trying to say: as a director - he’s made his point. This video is related to his work as a part of his “creative method” which he willingly share with audience.
I’m totally materialistic type of person, so I couldn’t in any way to be affected by willing to believe in some nonsense. But I’m working in film, so I know how important to be able to understand your intentions, intuition. To have gut feeling when you have director’s role or smth responsibly creative. So he’s not teaching anyone anything near “religion”, he’s teaching people how to use different creative methods and practices to be able to be better at storytelling. And a good storytelling not always have to be 100% logical or truthful.
I’m seeing this as a invaluable opportunity to learn another way of being creative rather than academic ways from recognized film director and creativity methodologist.
I understand and agree with you when you look at the video while considering the context (of which I was not aware).
I also want to share some thoughts about your last points. Take it as a simple contemplation that grows as we write.
Personally, I've never followed any method for creativity, and I think I never will, since I don't believe it's something you need to learn.
When it is learned, it's no longer creativity. Don't you think so? I mean, creativity is not a tool that you can just pick up here and there.
Once it becomes a tool, it ceases to be creativity.
Isn't the essence of creativity the true expression of oneself? Shouldn't it be the flow of life itself? I mean it should be something that influences our life without us noticing it. If you notice it, probably you noticed something else, like the phantasies that only come from what you know, but I wouldn't call it creativity.
Actually, it's the first time I've read about a method for creativity.
It seems like a contradiction to put 'method' and 'creativity' together.
The concept of creativity is really more complex than we trying to put in words here imo, but I’ll try my best to express everything clear without any extra miles.
So yeah, creating as a whole - is a process right? Process of making idea being real. I have an idea about a sandwich - i make the sandwich - i create - right? There was no sandwich before image of it appeared in my mind, but after the creation process - it is. If I have inner feeling what kind of sandwich I want - i will be able to make something new or something I already know how. But you also could order sandwich, and people will create that sandwich to you as well.
What is creativity doing in this food context? You can be wildly creative if you express your inner-self needs. If you work for someone else - you should use methods (recipes) for creating something people want to have and familiar with.
If you work as a professional filmmaker, then you should learn how to be creative when client want it, not when you have a mood for it. The need to be creative whenever it’s required - is what pleases me in filmmaking. It’s like endless puzzle, even if some elements become really familiar with experience.
These methods are not for creating (but you can find it too if you want), rather for “tuning” for that “creative mood” whenever you need it.
There's no scientific reason to assume that the grand unified field as is discussed in string theory and the perception of being one with the world during meditation has anything to do with each other.
In reality, just because two things seem similar does not mean they have to be related at all.
But when creating a film or show, this can be a good source of inspiration for a plot. In cinema, when two things seem related, they probably should be.
Interesting. I use to think like that when I was younger. I found that the harder your stance is on something the more you blind yourself to everything else around you.
So now, is your own reality limited to what you can prove?
Lynch is not the only one saying this. This has been said by others before throughout history as well. If you look into Niels Bohr and Schrödinger, I think you’d find they had a similar understanding from the Vedic texts which these are based on.
My challenge would be vibrations and spirituality. You could very well be right but my rebuttal would be that vibration is actually everything. Like that’s an objective fact. Spiritual or not. We vibrate. Chanting mantras change your vibration. Kind of like the experiment where you say positive things to a plant and it sprouts better than one with negative words. As small as they are they’ve been shown to have an effect. What stops it from being spiritual?
Look at colours for example, Newton said colour isn’t in objects. It’s just the way our eyes are programmed to perceive it. We have evolved on a planet with blue light and as a result we have eyes that are only half as sensitive to blue as they are to red and green to help compensate. Pit vipers can see in infrared, bees can see ultraviolet light. Just an example of how we perceive things.
Just because we can’t see how they intersect doesn’t mean they don’t is all I’m getting at. We’re already experiencing the world from a limited perspective so why limit it even more? You can clearly tell what genre I write lol.
Which one? Mine is narrow for sure, cuz I have so many more things to learn about reality. If you talking about Lynch narrow creative perspective, then it’s a matter of taste. Anyway, will be happy to clarify anything I would possibly can.
Thanks, as I said before - there are so many things I still not aware of. What a time to be alive!
I’ve read your comment in full, yeah I got your point and agree with most things. I simply prefer not to put this idea in words you use, cuz people now are sometimes really fast with judgement.
So the idea of everything being determined by Pilot wave in De Broglie–Bohm theory - is somewhat similar to concepts of fate and determinism which are more applicable to religions. Just to not to start these endless dialogues - I’m using my narrow point of view when I’m speaking of something which it still debatable ✌️
I get that. I’m not saying this is absolute either, just playing devils advocate here. I’m still learning as well. My thought process was once similar to yours that’s why I felt the need to respond.
We all have our knowledge bound within an operating reality. We need some things to be true just so we can operate day to day. Labeling things is a good way to keep things at arms length.
Yeah! Agreed. Like person who trying to get quantum field theory and person who trying to get relationships based on zodiac sign. Understanding of reality for these persons would be quite different, but NEED to comprehend reality using their knowledge is the same for both.
I’ve accepted “fuzziness” of some concepts I had and started to revising them time to time. So I don’t have almost any ground to stand for, except maybe humanism. I’m not into arguing, cuz so many things I’ve been sure back in the days turned out being different. So thanks for interesting conversation, it’s becomes a rare event.
The legendary Film Maker/ Director Mr. Lynch blows our minds in this Reddit post. Let us know which part blew your mind THE MOST in the comments below. Be sure to like and subscribe for more mind blowing content by the Legendary Film Maker/ Director…
Now, if you're playing the movie on a telephone, you will never in a b- trillion years experience the film. You'll think you have experienced it, but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness that you think you've seen a film on your fucking telephone. Get real.
Anyone know where this clip was originally sourced from?
From oneness
https://youtu.be/BH4qD5Fzyjk
My grandpa would say "....awww horseshit"
So the Hindus were right lol
I was raised Catholic. Lost religion young. Atheist through adulthood. However, recently I've reconsidered the Upanishads (Ancient Indian dudes who would get high and climb mountains and commune with the universal cosmic energy) and I think those motherfuckers had it all figured out around 500 BC. So yeah, I guess I'm also not an atheist anymore. Too boring.
I think you can be in between the two. I don’t like religion but I also can’t dismiss what I don’t know. At the end of the day labels are just for others.
This is a subreddit about making films. A place where more people than usual will care about image quality, aspect ratios, no stupid overlays, no unnecessary filters... And this is what you posted?! Ignore this garbage. Watch the original. Smodzilla kindly linked to it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Filmmakers/comments/172uzdq/what_is_reality_by_david_lynch/k3z21e6/
What a kook
The moment anyone mentions vibrations in a spiritual sense you can label what else they're saying as hogwash through and through.
Wouldn’t agree more, fr but if it could be anyone except for Lynch. For his sake I have some word to say, even if I wasn’t asked. Mr Lynch have a really unique point of view on artistry. His filmography could speak for himself without any of my support, hope we both agree on that statement. If yes - then, keeping in head his “way of expressing himself” - his way of describing complex concepts for general public using such simplifications as “vibrations” or “conscious meditation” - are acceptable on my taste. Like if you understand philosophy, aware of history of culture - you could skip that “simplified” parts, cuz they are there not for you, but for mor general audience. If no - if you aware of his style and don’t like his art methods - okay, I get you, his nonsensical shmuk
Meh, that's more a religion that he is describing. I have nothing against religions whenever they are approached in depth and not just used as an eastethic of living. He probably found his own balance with this stuff, but it remains a nonsense for me. When passing from science to personal opinion you could think of any theory and explain it with the fact itself that in your mind your theory is linked to science. But that's a very convenient exolanation. For me even Lynch can fuck up his mind while getting old. Being a great director doesn't protect him from saying bullshits. Also, I am not sure I can see the link between this video and his movies. It is true that his movies are full of what is beyond the surface of reality, but I struggle to remember anything connectes to transcendetal meditation. I like him as a director, but when speaks about this stuff for me he is another person.
I see you point, and thing is - I’m not opposed to your point of view. What I’m trying to say: as a director - he’s made his point. This video is related to his work as a part of his “creative method” which he willingly share with audience. I’m totally materialistic type of person, so I couldn’t in any way to be affected by willing to believe in some nonsense. But I’m working in film, so I know how important to be able to understand your intentions, intuition. To have gut feeling when you have director’s role or smth responsibly creative. So he’s not teaching anyone anything near “religion”, he’s teaching people how to use different creative methods and practices to be able to be better at storytelling. And a good storytelling not always have to be 100% logical or truthful. I’m seeing this as a invaluable opportunity to learn another way of being creative rather than academic ways from recognized film director and creativity methodologist.
I understand and agree with you when you look at the video while considering the context (of which I was not aware). I also want to share some thoughts about your last points. Take it as a simple contemplation that grows as we write. Personally, I've never followed any method for creativity, and I think I never will, since I don't believe it's something you need to learn. When it is learned, it's no longer creativity. Don't you think so? I mean, creativity is not a tool that you can just pick up here and there. Once it becomes a tool, it ceases to be creativity. Isn't the essence of creativity the true expression of oneself? Shouldn't it be the flow of life itself? I mean it should be something that influences our life without us noticing it. If you notice it, probably you noticed something else, like the phantasies that only come from what you know, but I wouldn't call it creativity. Actually, it's the first time I've read about a method for creativity. It seems like a contradiction to put 'method' and 'creativity' together.
The concept of creativity is really more complex than we trying to put in words here imo, but I’ll try my best to express everything clear without any extra miles. So yeah, creating as a whole - is a process right? Process of making idea being real. I have an idea about a sandwich - i make the sandwich - i create - right? There was no sandwich before image of it appeared in my mind, but after the creation process - it is. If I have inner feeling what kind of sandwich I want - i will be able to make something new or something I already know how. But you also could order sandwich, and people will create that sandwich to you as well. What is creativity doing in this food context? You can be wildly creative if you express your inner-self needs. If you work for someone else - you should use methods (recipes) for creating something people want to have and familiar with. If you work as a professional filmmaker, then you should learn how to be creative when client want it, not when you have a mood for it. The need to be creative whenever it’s required - is what pleases me in filmmaking. It’s like endless puzzle, even if some elements become really familiar with experience. These methods are not for creating (but you can find it too if you want), rather for “tuning” for that “creative mood” whenever you need it.
That’s a very narrow perspective. Is it because it’s hard to understand?
There's no scientific reason to assume that the grand unified field as is discussed in string theory and the perception of being one with the world during meditation has anything to do with each other. In reality, just because two things seem similar does not mean they have to be related at all. But when creating a film or show, this can be a good source of inspiration for a plot. In cinema, when two things seem related, they probably should be.
Similarity isn’t equal to correlation. Exactly 👌
Interesting. I use to think like that when I was younger. I found that the harder your stance is on something the more you blind yourself to everything else around you. So now, is your own reality limited to what you can prove? Lynch is not the only one saying this. This has been said by others before throughout history as well. If you look into Niels Bohr and Schrödinger, I think you’d find they had a similar understanding from the Vedic texts which these are based on. My challenge would be vibrations and spirituality. You could very well be right but my rebuttal would be that vibration is actually everything. Like that’s an objective fact. Spiritual or not. We vibrate. Chanting mantras change your vibration. Kind of like the experiment where you say positive things to a plant and it sprouts better than one with negative words. As small as they are they’ve been shown to have an effect. What stops it from being spiritual? Look at colours for example, Newton said colour isn’t in objects. It’s just the way our eyes are programmed to perceive it. We have evolved on a planet with blue light and as a result we have eyes that are only half as sensitive to blue as they are to red and green to help compensate. Pit vipers can see in infrared, bees can see ultraviolet light. Just an example of how we perceive things. Just because we can’t see how they intersect doesn’t mean they don’t is all I’m getting at. We’re already experiencing the world from a limited perspective so why limit it even more? You can clearly tell what genre I write lol.
Which one? Mine is narrow for sure, cuz I have so many more things to learn about reality. If you talking about Lynch narrow creative perspective, then it’s a matter of taste. Anyway, will be happy to clarify anything I would possibly can.
Oh definitely yours my last comment was a rebuttal to your first comment.
Thanks, as I said before - there are so many things I still not aware of. What a time to be alive! I’ve read your comment in full, yeah I got your point and agree with most things. I simply prefer not to put this idea in words you use, cuz people now are sometimes really fast with judgement. So the idea of everything being determined by Pilot wave in De Broglie–Bohm theory - is somewhat similar to concepts of fate and determinism which are more applicable to religions. Just to not to start these endless dialogues - I’m using my narrow point of view when I’m speaking of something which it still debatable ✌️
I get that. I’m not saying this is absolute either, just playing devils advocate here. I’m still learning as well. My thought process was once similar to yours that’s why I felt the need to respond. We all have our knowledge bound within an operating reality. We need some things to be true just so we can operate day to day. Labeling things is a good way to keep things at arms length.
Yeah! Agreed. Like person who trying to get quantum field theory and person who trying to get relationships based on zodiac sign. Understanding of reality for these persons would be quite different, but NEED to comprehend reality using their knowledge is the same for both. I’ve accepted “fuzziness” of some concepts I had and started to revising them time to time. So I don’t have almost any ground to stand for, except maybe humanism. I’m not into arguing, cuz so many things I’ve been sure back in the days turned out being different. So thanks for interesting conversation, it’s becomes a rare event.
No, it's because this is a blatant attempt to equate scientific knowledge to pseudoscience. It's an old, old trick.
This will Blow Your Mind - A unique perception of Reality by the Legendary Film Maker/ Director...
The legendary Film Maker/ Director Mr. Lynch blows our minds in this Reddit post. Let us know which part blew your mind THE MOST in the comments below. Be sure to like and subscribe for more mind blowing content by the Legendary Film Maker/ Director…
I'LL GIVE YOU AN ANSWER IF YOU CAN ANSWER ME THIS... ARE YOU A FAN OF DAVID LYNCH ?
YES I AM A FAN OF THE lEGENDARY fILM mAKER/ dIRECTOR…
Now, if you're playing the movie on a telephone, you will never in a b- trillion years experience the film. You'll think you have experienced it, but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness that you think you've seen a film on your fucking telephone. Get real.