Iconoclasts- Enlightenment
Posted 47 Minutes Ago
Comedian/actor Mike Myers talks about how enlightenment actually means “lightening up” when he sits down for a one-on-one conversation with philosopher Deepak Chopra in this clip from the next episode of Iconoclasts. Airs Thursday, November 8th @10PM on The Sundance Channel! For More info, visit: http://www.sundancechannel.com/iconoclasts/
Sucking up to Deepak Chopra? Blechh. Pretending that his nonsense has anything to do with enlightenment? Double blechh.
The only part that’s valid is the claim that humor is part of enlightenment values—so let’s all laugh at these two goofballs.
So Mike Myers is a little goofy? Stop the presses! ;-)
I don’t see much reason to get upset when individuals have funny beliefs if those beliefs don’t really have much to do with their work, or when they don’t get in-your-face obnoxious about it (eg. Tom Cruise). George Harrison was into the totally ridiculous transcendental meditation, but still a phenomenal musician. Same goes for Mike Myers. Besides, they’re artists, and I think we should just expect (perhaps even hope) them to be a little loopy and not always viewing things in a completely logical fashion.
Mike Myers has stuck me as crazy ever since he put on a white mask and tried to murder Jamie Lee Curtis over twenty years ago.
If you’re upset at MM, then you probably aren’t ecstatic about David Lynch and his TM roadshow.
Deepak Chopra is a philosopher the way Jonathon Wells is a developmental biologist.
Maybe this is cutting Mr. Myers some slack, but it sounds to me (based on just that clip) that he’s goofing on the git.
Goof on the git, goof on the git, goof on the git with your big bad wit, oh yeah! Oh yeah! Oh-ho…
Sorry.
Well… I still think he’s funny, darnit >:/ I don’t think this spiritualism stuff is quite as bad as say, Christianity, despite it being equally unprovable, since the spiritualist dogmas tend to be fuzzy and lovey-dovey, and most of them accept evolution and the age of the earth at least.
Gotta say I’m a little weirded out though, I had no idea Myers was into Chopraism.
I’d have to say…asphinctersayswhat.
SInce when is Chopra a philosopher? All I’ve ever seen him do is blather feel-good nonsense.
-jcr
PZ, please don’t call Deepak a philosopher ever again.
He is a new-age KOOK is what he is.
Philosophers don’t like him.
Yeah, I’d have to agree with those who find Mike Myers committing a venial sin. It’s the Diet Coke of Evil: just one calorie; not evil enough. Not quite evil enough. Semi-evil. Quasi-evil. The margarine of evil.
Meh! This only way I would watch this is if Fat Bastard was yelling at Chopra; “Get in my belly!”.
Well, Mike Myers is the alter ego of Dr. Evil, of course.
“ZIP it! ZZip…”
I didn’t call Chopra a philosopher — that’s the text that was included with the embed code from the source.
Ah, that explains it. I mistook the blurb for your own words.
Apologies :)
… I just get so annoyed seeing his “books” beside Dan Dennett, Simon Blackburn, Harry Frankfurt and Patricia Churchland in bookstores. (They generally group philosophy with either religion or new-age, and it pisses me off to no end).
Science writers are lucky, they get stuck next to Pets or Travel.
Deepak’s put on a bit of weight…he looks like a freakish Al Gore/Jeff Goldblum hybrid.
I remember when Mike Myers appeared on the Oscars with a big Ash Wednesday cross on his forehead. I was like “WTF?” until my sister reminded me what it was.
Chopra makes me mad like few else can. I got suckered into his world of happy flowers for the better part of a month before I saw it for what it is.
The guy is charming, charismatic, and seems convincing with all his perverted pantheism and quantum quackery. His bunk is just about the same crap as “The Secret” only he applies it to medicine.
This is deceptive and dangerous, and I for one would like to see the good Mr. Chopra Deepaked across the face with a legitimate medical journal.
Chopra and his ilk have done irreparable damage to the image of classical indian philosophy with their fabrications. There is no comparable case for other classical traditions — Aristotle remains a legit philosopher to study despite his woolly ‘physics’ and endorsement by the scholastics.
The Indian sub-continent did have a rich tradition of secular philosophy. There were many schools with competing theories on epistemology, metaphysics and philosophy of language…and their best defenders would engage in academic debates and ‘publish’ (Writing ‘sutras’ or commentaries on ‘sutras’).
But now thanks to the marketing prowess of new-agers this fact is largely unknown even to many indians. Most of classical indian philosophy had earlier (pre-Indian independence) been reduced to ‘Hindu’ philosophy but now it’s been reduced to woo!!!
Mr. “Ageless Body, Timeless Mind” isn’t looking so young these days…
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/images/012807/012807_3_lrg.jpg
http://thisisamerica.podomatic.com/2007-01-12T10_25_49-08_00.jpg
Excuse me. I mean Dr. “Ageless Body, Timeless Mind”.
As an amateur philosopher and experienced human I am, like Mr Chopra, influenced by quantum physics. Of course, I don’t understand quantum physics, but I’m definitely influenced by it.
Myers starred in the live-action “Cat in the Hat.” Nothing he does now can make that legacy worse.
I suspect Myers has fallen for the common bait-and-switch of religion: take reasonable, common sense values and facts about how to live happily in the universe; take grandiose, supernatural nonsense and baseless assertions about the primacy of human happiness structured into the universe; then blur them together so that they’re “really just two versions of the same thing.” Let credibility for the irrational part sneak in by riding on the back of the credible, rational part.
I once read a review of one of Chopra’s books which boiled his life philosophy down to
1.) Accept things as they are; accept opportunities; accept yourself.
2.) Slow down your lifestyle and relax; become more conscious of your thoughts and actions.
Ok, that’s vague, simplistic, nonspecific and not terribly helpful: you have to put yourself in and do the rational work in order to make that livable or see some kind of breakthrough insight in this. But it’s not really bad advice. There’s a good dollop of common sense in there. We could all probably improve our lives by applying at least parts of it in a reasonable way.
Is that all that Chopra is about, though?
Not by a long shot. The pseudoscientific gibberish on Consciousness and the “death of materialism” and evolution as a progressive series of higher levels of Vitalism revealing itself is just plain wrong. But is that what people really take away from Chopra? Yes and no.
Myers could easily just be looking at the feel-good blah blah “enlightenment is just another way of saying ‘lighten up'” outside of the Trojan horse. He may not be endorsing — over even caring much — about the pseudoscience.
gee paul, when i saw that head-line, i thought what have i done now? it should have read “im very disappointed in that other mike myers”
I don’t think that the people that get paired up for this program get a choice of who they are juxtaposed with.
From my experience, every pair showcased is little more than a documented mutual admiration society meeting, which is why I never watch the show, but this may explain Myers’ feel-good platitudes re Chopra and vice-versa.
For some reason, a lot of otherwise intelligent people seem to have the utmost respect for Chopra. It’s a feeling I do not share, but that’s irrelevant.
It’s as though, since he’s a pretty strong PBS supporter, he must be extra-smart.
People have the same respect for “Doctor” Phil, who still isn’t a doctor. I don’t know how he gets away with that one.
David Lynch and his TM roadshow.
Is he actually making supernatural claims?
This may be stating the obvious, but I’m under the impression that the ability to read a script in a funny voice is not in fact a qualification for discussing philosophy.
This goes for both Myers and Chopra.
Damn right. He didn’t spend six weeks at Fake Doctorate Diploma-Mills R Us to be called Mr.
Some of it not merely secular, but materialistic and atheistic.
Some of it not merely secular, but materialistic and atheistic.
MM is an actor. Anyone who takes an actor seriously, with very few exceptions, deserves to be taken in. Actors don’t major in subjects, they major in themselves.