Personal Anguish And Questions About The Poet example essay topic

Film Review: Mindwalk If a good movie is one that makes you think, Mindwalk must be superb. However, I haven't even read the book it was based on and I can say that the book must have been better. The actors are laughable, and the physicists' accent changes with each new scene. Furthermore, the transitions to each scene are as smooth as sandpaper. The purpose of this movie wasn't, and with good reason, to be glamorous though. As many of our "Hollywood" movies are.

The fast action, sex, blood, money crazed movies that we all love. The fact that Mindwalk was based on a book also gives some explanation to the choppy scenes, as many omissions were probably made. Financing played a role in the actors chosen for the movie, a kind of ironic humor if you think about it in context to what the entire movie is about. All of this in mind, and the fact that it was a lengthy 2+ hours; it could never be a blockbuster hit. I, on the contrary, enjoyed it. Some of the issues raised are those that many of us think about often, or maybe I am just hoping that I'm not the only one.

As one of the many business majors, the idea of my job being meaningless, or al least not a significant "benefit" to society has crossed my mind. I am in college to compete in our materialistic society for the highest paying job. In other words, I'm in it for the money. Perhaps the "crisis of perception" is something for me to think about, maybe even more than others. I know my reasons aren't in line with the value system I like to portray I have and live by. Yet, I still compromise them; giving myself the excuse that I am doing it all for my future family, or something like that.

The "crisis of perception" is in my life, and everyone's. For instance success for most comes from an education. However that success isn't associated with the knowledge, but with the money you make as a result. The physicist used the "crisis of perception" example as an explanation of how to fix everything wrong with the world. Explaining that focusing on one piece can't work, and that everything is "interconnected". She uses the example of a person with gallstones.

A western medicine physician would take the gall bladder out. However the physicist explained that whatever issue caused the gallstones, perhaps stress, will cause the person to get sick again. Perhaps that person was the one pursuing a career for money, and not passion or knowledge and therefore they weren't truly happy in their career. Not to say I don't have a passion for business, I love the thrill of it and the competition. I love the fact that I can change careers on a whim, and that there will always be a job for me. But, the question I give to myself is, would I still pick this profession if money were not a factor?

I think society is becoming aware of the fact that we need to look at the "whole picture" though. Especially in regards to health care. With the rising number of Naturopaths, Herbalists, Reflex ologies, Massage Therapists, Acupuncturists, or practioners in Aru veda techniques. All alternative practices based on holistic healing and the idea that the mind, body, and spirit are one and must be treated together. We are still, despite rising awareness, stuck in the mode of what is called "mechanistic thinking" by the physicist. She credits Descartes for the start of this thinking; and Isaac Newton for giving it life.

Using the clock as an example and how we have replaced many of the old parts with more technological replacements. The clock is not the same as it once was, neither is society. This thinking has expired and it is hurting us now. We need a new way of looking at life in order to adapt. A way of thinking that the physicist thinks would better suit people now is "ecological thinking".

People have to get a firmer grasp of reality and realize that every problem is related to another problem, and another, and so on. She mentions a personal empowerment of knowledge, and if I am interpreting her meaning of this correctly, not too many people embrace this idea. Knowledge is all to often associated with money and how much of it you have. Knowledge is power, but I think to many of us have the wrong meaning of "power". If every doctor had an ongoing file of each patients diet, and then gave healthier suggestions that intern the patient followed; we wouldn't have a need for the tons of prescription drugs that pharmaceutical companies hammer out each year. Or the health foods we spend so much money on; because of the marketing techniques that give us the insane idea that we must all be size 3, or whatever.

Omitting the fact that those models may very well still be obese, their body fat percentage is well above the average person. Knowledge is power. Acquiring the knowledge of how to lead a healthy life would start the web of solving many of our problems. The discussions in the film revolve around personal anguish, and questions about the poet, the politician and the physicist's own lives.

And, as each new point or argument is given, a question is also given. And, the answer to this question presented which in turn is presented by another question. This style of dialogue allows the conversation to keep moving, and the speakers to keep questioning the way that they think. This type of conversation can be defined as dialectic; the process of eliciting the truth by means of questions aimed at opening up what is already implicitly known, or at exposing the contradictions of an opponent's position.

And, the goal of this dialogue is to make the viewer think. As it is apparent with in the Poet's speech in the end of the film. He questions the systems theory and compares it to the mechanistic thinking that the physicist opposed. In this speech he says he feels "just as reduced being called a system as being called a machine... ". .

He doesn't think life is that condensable, those are just words, like the seasons changing; "life feels itself" and there are no words to manage it. The systems theory was how the phyisist explained we should look at the world, you can't look at the trunk of the tree and explain much. You must look at the whole tree in relation to the forest, and the world. How it effects the animals and plants, and vice versa. The poet argued that you couldn't explain life, and how the world works with such simple words. Life is much bigger than even that.

And thus, the movie leaves you to think about much more than you possibly can at one time. And, so the conclusion. Would I recommend this film? Sure I would, we could all use a little intellectual stimulation. And, I think this movie was very interesting, not only that but for once in my life I sort of understood what physics was all about. The whole orange and cherry example really put it all in perspective.