Awakening the Dreamer: Changing the Dream

2012, Society  -   71 Comments
974
8.57
12345678910
Ratings: 8.57/10from 94 users.
Storyline

Of all the innumerable beliefs and hypotheses that make up our contemporary industrial perspective on life there is one that is dominant and very frequent. That's the assumption that we are disconnected, from everyone and everything. This belief configures basically all our ideas and actions. There's a crucial fallacy that we are separate. But, if there is only one, then whatever I do to you I'm actually doing it to myself, my family, and my children.

Spiritual attitude has long instructed that partition is actually an illusion. However, in the past, the narrative that's been exchanged in the modern world, whether consciously or unconsciously, has been that the world functions like a huge machine made of separate parts like a big clock. For the past four centuries, the scientific established practice has been trying to take the clock apart, and figure out how it functions, so we can use it for our own ambitions.

This rigid aspect meant that instead of realizing the relation between things, we were analyzing and taking apart those very same things. So, what developed was kind of disintegrated view of the natural world. And we became entranced with the ability that came out of this technology, and we lost our relations to each other; we lost our connection to the enigma of the cosmos.

Although the modern worldview is superior on Earth, it's valuable to identify that it's not the only worldview. Traditional, native cultures are not so concentrated on "advancement", rather they're focused on their health and persistence of the community, and they see the interdependence of all things. They try to recognize that we're related to everything... to the animals, fish, plants, trees, birds, and even to the microorganisms. Indigenous people of the world have a particularly important role to play at this moment in history. We need them to come forward and explain how they see things.

More great documentaries

71 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Infinite plane

    The earth is flat and infinate. Deal with it. Nasa has NO Photos, just CGI. Google math Powerland or any other flat earth youtube channel on FE, but not flat earth society because they are controlled opposition. Gravity is a theory that was never proven. The Holocaust never happened the way we were told, nukes are a lie and so are dinosaurs.

  2. Blue Clue

    Didn't Maharishi Mahesh Yogi try something similar with his movement, TM. All good ideas, but the consumption and degradation seems to continue. It takes a catalyst for us to change, and we have not yet seem one big enough to have a change impact.

  3. Joe

    I generally agree with this documentary, but the chart at 32:44 is misleading. $15,000 in 1960 in the US is equivalent to $120,320.78 in 2014 after adjusting for inflation (that's a 702.1% inflation). In 2007, the US income figure of roughly $40,000 correlate with the overall steady level of happiness. Studies have shown that happiness increases up to a certain point (roughly $81,000 in today's dollars), and then increases in income have much less marginal benefit in general, ceteris paribus (e.g. holding family size, cost of living, etc. constant).

    You would have to use real incomes adjusted for inflation and correlate it with happiness reports, however happiness is indicated, to see how incomes affect happiness.

  4. Francis

    I don't know if there's a Heaven up above because I live in one, the Earth, that some men insist in "hellanize".

  5. Jacek Walker

    What an excuse in the age of omnipresent internet would be to the masses to remain still ignorant?

    Seems most people don't want to know the truth for one reason or another. Reality is too scary, too meaningless...

    Why is so much apply to sex, gambling, games, alcohol, drugs in the world? Those are all ways to escape reality. And those toys are not for free either.

    I hold an opinion that people remain ignorant of reality because they have been hypnotized, brainwashed, stupefied but sometimes I am not sure.....

  6. Kansas Devil

    The message of this documentary has been repeated since before I was born. The information presented is nothing new.
    Yet, here we are still involved in the same hedonisticly consumerist rituals.
    One can suspect the human race is inherently suicidal in slow motion.
    If we don't run out of resources, there is a possibility we will travel to another planet and infect it with our humanity..and on and on.
    Perhaps the universe has checks and balances to deal with that.

    1. Matt K

      I could not agree more.

    2. Random Bob

      If hypothetically we did go to another planet.. Judging what weve done to earth.. if there is a more intelligent lifeform than humans Im sure they would just eradicate us as we do cockroaches.

  7. Gabriel Forbes

    It's nice to see that Antarctic ice is growing back, hehe.

  8. Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    The title should rather be (cause its truth/fact)not a theory!
    **Why have we have forsaken God!!!? **

  9. Janeen Clark

    identifying an objective causality.
    1. domination through the use of reward and punishment and competition at the heart of the systems and mindset of people until today due to real or imagined scarcity .
    identifying an objective solution.
    1. holistic understanding through the use of co-operation empathy and compassion at a social level.
    2. establish a systems approach to civilization where the emphasis is placed on abundance and empathy.
    3. open source type methodology getting everyone evolved in the restoration process of society and the planet , by allowing people to excel at participation coupled with scientific method and a holistic framework where "spirituality" of oneness can be captured in the underlining open source architecture.

  10. CapnCanard

    The reason that things are falling apart is a little complex. It is set of reasons, but population growth and the attendant issue of technological growth are primary. But, IMO, the major driver of collapse is the capitalist ideal of sustainable growth. I think that the monetary structure is very much to blame. The idea of money as value is outdated. It's value is left to speculators and charlatans.

    We have the technology and resources to create only that what we need in a sustainable format. I call this format nature. IIn this format we use only what we need and then we replace what we used with new seeds, plants, animals, resources, products, etc etc etc. Make the cycle of consumption a closed loop. You can only take out what you put in. I believe it is possible but we have a great deal of work to do. with over 200 years of propaganda to overcome. There is far more than that, but it is a start.

    1. Janeen Clark

      not only capitalism but all monetary based structures are utilizing domination through the use of reward and punishment. as a result division on every social level between people has occurred.

    2. Matt K

      We need to check out Dr. Greers lectures and radio intervues. Technology is the real skin of our species... we take in material, put them through mental filters and extrude Computers, Vehicles and Buildings...

    3. CapnCanard

      Matt K, Dr Greer's "Sirius/disclosure" is a start. I think that the UFO/ET issue, psychadelics/psychotropic drugs, weird spirit/NDEs, and other phenomena all have something to show and tell us but the Powerful are refusing to listen! Let alone even acknowledge the possibility in any way. I will blame this on power, the source of which is the monetary system that really only values things that are scarce. And that is why our economic system will never use Hydrogen as a fuel source simply because it is the most abundant element in the universe. In addition that is why the concept of "consciousness" as a possible methodology/tactic/technology of travel will never be explored beyond Frank Herbert's old SciFi novel Dune. The change has to happen from all of us lowly peasants, from the ground up.

    4. Matt K

      Personally, the shure amount of Information coming in is overwhelming me. It is getting to be too much. Maybe others reading this can agree.

      Do, others feel the same way? Too much information, especially if they are one to get emotionally effected by it all, can be harmful to your health.

      I used to think that there was real Evil in the world, conspiring to really create Chaos out of Order. I am sure there are a small group that think this way.

      But, I have concluded that people that do think that way are VERY few, and they do it out of fear.

      But, the real conspiracy is just Ignorance. meaning Ignoring things, simply not even knowing that withholding important things is done out of Fear and Ignoring or Ignorance. Much MUCH more so then Conspiracy.

      I know the Conspiracy Theorist willget mad. But, the majority of the problems are not Conspiracy, but rather being Ignorant. They simply are leaving out important puzzle pieces, or being lazy and wanting to not face changes.

      So, that is somewhat comforting to me, that it is ignorance that we need to over come more than 'Evil' Demon men in a dark smokey room planning to Blow things up. That IS out there...but my point is, ignorance is MUCH greater piece of the Mind Pie Chart than Dr. Evil's.

      So, if people just keep talking, keep making videos and keep on keeping on and all along everything was OK and in place all along...

    5. CapnCanard

      Okay Matt K, sorry about that, but the more I learn about all this fringey stuff, and the closer I look at it all, the more credible it all appears. Ten years ago I was waiting for our Gov't to give us a reasonable explanation for why all three towers collapsed at near free fall speed and all we got was a huge, massive, gaping silence. Then nearly 8 years later engineering experts started to speak out... Now Dr. Greer has former gov't officials testifying that aliens have been here and are here. That sheet is a real WTF moment. Things have changed, really really changed. But if people watch television they'll never learn about any of this.

  11. Mars Sentinel

    Religion is the "B" tool of control, chosen by the rulers to manage - you. Money is the "A" tool.

    1. Janeen Clark

      money is the largest religion the world has ever seen.

    2. Matt K

      Money is worse than the largest religeon. Money is invisible yet compells matter animated with the Holy Spirit to take a gun and kill a child to sell the organs.

      It is THEE scourge of rationale mind that is a deadly virus infecting any and all operating systems. To over come it is easy.

      just say no, opt out and quit.... even in the face of your possible death, it MUST be rejected as a reason to give your talent away in exchange for a damn cocaine ladden dirty ass FED NOTE.

    3. oQ

      just say no, opt out and quit what? work? all of us? instantly?

    4. Jameson

      yes

  12. oQ

    The grim reality is that people still gave huge amount of Christmas presents during the Holidays despite the fact that we are in debt, that the earth is suffering, that the deprived (3rd world as we feel comfortable calling them) are still losing their resources and gaining nothing in return.
    This makes me think that IF the natural reality is a product of our consciousness, in other words if there is a unified consciousness that assembles energy into particles into the physical reality we see, then the title of this movie may be more meaningful than expected.
    The "crackpots" of science, those called the pseudo-scientists, those who dare think that there may be more than MATTER may in fact have the solution at the tip of their thoughts.

    1. jaberwokky

      I'd say the 'natural reality' is just our limited perception of a much broader and divergent reality. As to how we can affect this reality with hitherto undiscovered vistas of preternatural powers I'll refrain from comment, apart from registering my Skepticism. To be honest though it would not surprise me if the "crackpots" were to be vindicated. Evolution does not start and end with humanity so to think all the answers are within our species is folly. Personally I think we are all just playing a part in the evolution of something much bigger than we could ever possibly understand.

      Edited.
      Reason: Emphasis.

    2. oQ

      To our knowledge Evolution starts with us.
      We humans are the only one observing evolution therefore it may be a creation (or a dream) of a united consciousness. A programmed physical pattern learned through imaginary bloodline.
      Primacy of consciousness versus Primacy of matter?
      Opposite or Complementary? I presume, there will be much to discover on the topic in 2014.

    3. Philio

      Haven't watched this yet but you've peaked my interest. I like the way your mind works.

    4. oQ

      The doc is one of many of a similar message.
      As for the thoughts, I always wonder where exactly they come from....a thought just seem to land from no where, that's surely why cartoonists have written short lines in bubbles.

  13. snodgrass

    Even if the cynics are right and we manage to destroy ourselves, it won`t change the fact that many millions of people believed we could become all that I believe we are meant to be. With hope we have a future, without it we never had anything..........Peace : )

    1. jaberwokky

      We don't need millions, we just need each one ;)

  14. jaberwokky

    Once you get past the first few minutes which play like a Wether's originals ad then this documentary is quite good and makes for a compelling watch, provided you're not already too jaded of course.
    It's nice to see a doc with so much hope on here. Round of applause for the "one fool standing" :)

  15. 1concept1

    I saw a doc somewhere where there were so many of this particular creature that that was its survival mode; meaning after the "storm" there would be some that survived just because there are so many?

    one hundered years ago there 1.5, billion people on the entire Earth - today there are 7, billion people one the entire Earth - Do you think maybe our population explosion was put into place so as to make sure that there would be some of us left when the stuff hits the fan?

    There is a lot of diversionary thinking in this world because of the compact evolution of synthetic mental masterbation - tinker toys and mary-go-rounds? But at core level there is just one of us a life form

    Didn't anyone read "Chicken Little"

    Do you actually believe anyone is going to give up their "play station" and go back to yo-yo's

    NOT A CHANCE

    I have said this before on here; "What difference does it make if we die one at a time or all at a time"?

    I don't know about you but i am sick and tired of being sick and tired of listening to this horse tihs in the mean time i have just enough left to pack my one hitter - my man will be back in town tomorrow!

  16. rg57

    "the spiritual attitude has long instructed that partition is actually an illusion."

    Actually, no. This is in fact the scientific view. It is Religion and its conservative friend Business which long set humans (and particularly men) apart from the world. By focusing on what is real instead of imagined or advertised, our interdependence becomes obvious.

    At the smallest levels, we are all atoms, everything on this planet.
    At the largest levels, we are all irrelevant.
    On the human scale, the planet matters.
    But on the planetary scale, humans are irrelevant, except to the extent we may accelerate the extinction period that started before recorded history.
    Further, the planet is not a system like a clock. It doesn't strive for balance. It doesn't favor life. It is chaotic. And it just is, while it is.

    While there are obvious large benefits to slowing progress and taking a more thoughtful pace, we need not adopt a bunch of magical nonsense to do it.

    What is lacking is not knowledge of what to do, but the will to do it.

    1. Adam Young

      how is highlighting one type of connectivity while so unscientifically denying the possibility of other types make science the vanguard of wisdom regarding connectivity ? we haven't even been beyond our own moon yet so how could we possibly 100 % know what else is out there ? since when did science become a complete and finished work ? i'm not saying what you say is wrong but to simply brush aside all else simply because your infinite all seeing mind doesn't see something is nothing but arrogance and it sure ain't science.

    2. a_no_n

      yes but at the same accepting every assumption at face value for that reason is equally as regressive.

    3. Adam Young

      i said accepting the possibility of, meaning such aspects warrant proper investigation rather than simply brushing them aside as laughable.
      just because i accept the possibility of something doesn't mean i'm saying it is fact, unlike many in scientific community that build their careers on making concrete statements, preaching best guess theories as if they were proven fact.

    4. a_no_n

      But you're not. You're trying to dismiss science in favour of spiritual bull affluence.

      Also the word theory has a different meaning to a scientist than to a layman, i would suggest that you google "Scientific theory" and check what wiki says on the subject because it is not interchangable with the commonplace term.

    5. Adam Young

      i don't care to continue this conversation with somebody who clearly has everything already figured out. have a nice life.

    6. DarkSpirit

      That is just one point of view though. According to the Gaia hypothesis, the Earth is one major complex system that interacts with the biota although the hypothesis does have its critics.

    7. a_no_n

      reality being one of them

    8. DarkSpirit

      Why are you so sure? Furthermore, it is not as if the Gaia hypothesis has no supporting evidences. You should read the work of Dr. James Lovelock who had advanced the hypothesis.

    9. a_no_n

      In a world of unlimited research funding i would agree with you, but unfortunatly that's not the world we live in.
      Geology clearly disagrees. There's nothing down there but molten lava and iron.

      Physics also disagrees quite strongly as well.
      Don't get me wrong, It's a beautiful concept, and life would be lovely were it true...but...

    10. DarkSpirit

      Then you should examine its supporting scientific evidences like the work of Dr Harry Oduro who traced and measure the movement of sulfur through ocean organisms, the atmosphere, and the land. As predicted by the Gaia hypothesis, a sulfur compound would have to return sulfur from the sea to the land and this turns out to be dimethyl sulfide.

      Gaia hypothesis states that the Earth's physical and biological processes are connected to form a self-regulating system to maintain the conditions of life. This has been proven to be so in many scientific experiments. Gaia hypothesis is not suggesting that the Earth meets the criteria of a biological life form, obviously there is no evidence that the Earth has reproduced.

      It is not enough to simply dismiss a hypothesis through hand waving. You should provide counter scientific evidences if you disagree.

    11. a_no_n

      No i haven't heard of it, and to be honest i fail to see how one correct "prediction" proves anything. If there's any validity to it then peer review will find it.

      Actually when you're presenting a new/odd/contradictory theory such as gaia theory, the onus is on you as the claimant to prove it, not for me as the skeptic to disprove it...that's basic science 101, the Burden of proof!
      Skepticism is a perfectly valid scientific standpoint. as a good singer once said, if you open your mind too much, your brain falls out.

    12. DarkSpirit

      In that case, then your mind can be so closed that it is still in the dark ages and it would never learn anything new. Gaia hypothesis has many scientific evidences to support it, not just one and I am not going to list them all down in this little forum.

      Given that it already HAS supporting evidences, it is up to you, the skeptic, to disprove it or offer an alternative explanation to all its supporting evidences.

      To be scientific doesn't mean to disbelieve everything right off, it means to be broad minded but test everything using scientific methods.

    13. a_no_n

      except closed minded science has given us everything, including the internet and computer that you're making all of these wooly statements on, and i say wooly because you're chipping away at what Gaia theory is in order to make it.

    14. DarkSpirit

      Wrong. If you are closed minded then how can you learn anything? You would still think that the Earth is flat and the Earth is the center of the universe because you refuse to believe in any alternative theory period.

      Close-mindedness has NEVER ever been the way to advance science. Otherwise, the close-minded people who threatened Galileo when he supported the heliocentric universe from Copernicus, would have been your heroes. Einstein special theory of relativity would have been rejected because it demands you to believe that time actually slows down the faster your velocity which has never been intuitive to the common man. Not to mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and most of quantum physics that are mostly unintuitive.

    15. a_no_n

      Ok here we are, bullsh1t by numbers...You've made two logical fallacies, and i'm going to take them both apart for you.

      1/ Flat earth/earth at the centre of the universe, much like Gaia theory is a RELIGIOUS concept not a scientific one...your "Red herring" has missed.

      2/Gallileo was shot down by the CHURCH not by scientists...you see, Gallileo had EVIDENCE for his claims, as did Einstein, same with Heisenburg...your "Gallileo fallacy" has missed.

    16. DarkSpirit

      It doesn't matter if they are religious or not. Close-mindedness, by its very definition, implies being stubborn and unreceptive to any new ideas.

      Beliving that the Earth is flat sounded intuitive to the people back then and like you, would probably argue that a round Earth contradicts reality because people believed, without a concept of gravity, that things would have tend to slip on a round Earth.

      If people have always been close-minded they wouldn't have been receptive to any new ideas and science would never have advanced beyond the concept of a flat Earth.

    17. a_no_n

      lol, are you serious?
      Talk about shifting the goalposts. (Just a couple more logical fallacies and I get to shout out Bingo)
      Religion has everything to do with it, because all the scientists you've listed at me, were struggling against RELIGION, not other scientists...your misrepresentation of science and it's history is laughably misinformed, to the point where i think you're just regurgitating something you heard in a pub.

      Ok, you seem obsessed with flat earthers so let me tell you about them. They weren't as popular as you seem to think they were...the curvature of the earth easily proves that the world isn't flat (notice that word again...PROVES)...they figured that out in ancient Greece, so please put that red herring back where you found it.

      i'm getting kinda bored of correcting your misinformed assumptions, how about a coursory google before your next load please.

    18. DarkSpirit

      Wrong again, the fact that the Earth was believed to be flat long predates even Christianity, so how can it be because of it? In most cultures, the Earth was thought to be flat until the Middle ages. Even in Greece, it wasn't until the classical period (4th-5th centuries BC) that they thought that the Earth was flat.

      You should read up on your history before you reply rather than simply blame Christianity for every wrong scientific assumptions known to man throughout history. But I can't expect much from a self-proclaimed close-minded person like you, can I?

    19. a_no_n

      Um, no i'm not wrong...the curvature of the earth was a well known fact in the Dark ages. Otherwise the Greeks the vikings and the Romans wouldn't have bothered sailing anywhere for fear they'd fall off the edge. You're talking out your backside.

      It's hard not to blame christianity for supressing science, when they were the ones burning people at the stake for suggesting God might not be the centre of the universe.

      Please take your ideological history revisionism and go away...It's impossible to argue with people who think they can change facts and history to suit their argument.
      Let me guess Jesus was the greatest scientist of all right?

      Being 'closed minded' let's me easily identify bullsh1t merchants like you. The truth is when EVIDENCE appears supporting a theory, I will change my opinion. Until then though, i'm not willing to believe every crank and woo that comes along insisting i 'open my mind' with their special pleading.

      all i need now is an argumenrt from tradition, an argument from popularity, an argument from authority and a gish gallop and i think you will have made just about every logical fallacy there is to make.

    20. DarkSpirit

      Learn to read. Even the Greeks thought that the Earth was flat before the 5th century BC, so how was it possible for Christianity to wrongly influence others that the Earth was flat when Jesus Christ wasn't even born yet? Don't you need the founder to be born first for the founded religion to be even conceived? So thanks for the obvious flawed logic.

    21. a_no_n

      What's your source for that?
      I've given you several fairly concrete explainations for my claims, all you've done is insist that you are right and i am wrong.

    22. DarkSpirit

      Just check google and go from there. Your so-called "fairly concrete explanations" violate too many physical laws of time and space.

    23. a_no_n

      what exactly is it you're referring to?

      So the vikings didn't sail around the world to Amrica? The Romans didn't trade with the Chineese because that violates physics does it?

      Are you changing the meaning of the word physics now as well?

      You're going to have to write a new dictionary so i can keep up with all the terms your changing to suit this argument.

    24. il_trota

      sorry couldn't help to comment on this...no discovery would have been achieved without different approaches. closed minded science makes only for not so good teachers imho. sad to see how a good chat could turn like this… having different point of views is what makes people special. respect that.
      i think everyone commenting here is somehow informed, why discourage people to enrich each other with different point of views?

      regarding gaia's principle, i think the worst mistake lovelock did was naming it that way.
      to me the hypothesis makes perfect sense in its triviality. i don't see how it counters reality, but id love to hear some different point of view.

    25. a_no_n

      hm, again i don't think being "open minded" had anything to do with it.
      All of these discoveries were made with the scientific method, with careful study and continual experiment, not by assumption as you seem to believe.

      "Enriching" people with ideas is only good when those ideas are good and based in fact...By saying "Open your mind" what you are in fact saying is "please don't question my assumptions." an attitude which is pretty much the exact opposite of what science is all about.

      When you tell someone to "Open their mind" what you're saying is "I don't have evidence but i'd like you to believe me anyway" and in my opinion that is just plain wrong. crank theories and idiotic notions SHOULD be questioned if the people that champion them ever want to be taken seriously.

      If Gaia theory has any basis in fact, then the evidence will prove it whether my mind is open or not.

      once i see evidence, i'll change my opinion accordingly.

    26. docoman

      A hypothesis that has some supporting evidence is still a hypothesis. Its not up to others to disprove a hypothesis, unless they claim outright it is wrong, it's still the work of those proposing it to try to demonstrate it is more then an idea. With enough supporting evidence, testing and correct predictions, peer review confirming it, it may graduate to a Theory.
      (that's a very common fallacy religious people use for their scriptures and claims. It is still their responsibility to prove their hypothesis.)

      I'd suggest to be open minded in a scientific way, one needs to be both broad minded and skeptical.

    27. docoman

      G'day a_no_n,
      I've enjoyed reading this conversation between you and DarkSpirit.

      You've made a couple errors mate. The first one that stands out to me, is DarkSpirit always called it the 'Gaia hypothesis', where I notice you start calling it the 'Gaia Theory'.

      As you said mate, that's science 101.

      There's a massive difference between a hypothesis and a theory, (in fact, you giving it the credence of a theory argues against yourself.)

      And about the point you were making in that particular post, about 'burden of proof'.

      DarkSpirit said it's a hypothesis and gave 2 scientists as reference. The post you made where you said, "reality being one of them" in response to him saying the Gaia hypothesis is just a point of view, actually is a statement. You're claiming there the hypothesis is wrong.

      At that point, the onus of the burden of proof shifts onto you, as you're clearly claiming the hypothesis is incorrect, and thus the one making the statement.

      I'm not saying I agree with the Gaia Hypothesis, just there are some problems with what you call 'fairly concrete explanations', as I can't see where you've provided any sources debunking the hypothesis to back your claim.

    28. a_no_n

      nah that's totally fair enough and you're a hundred percent correct. I often have slips of terminology like that, it comes from being a complete layman, i get so bogged down in the details that i let things slip and fall into fallacy myself. Thank you for pointing out that error to me!

      edit: Although i must point out that my "Concrete claims" were on the Flat earth issue that Darkspirit has insisted on shifting the argument toward, i never actually claimed concrete evidence against Gaia theory.

    29. docoman

      As a fellow layman I know the feeling mate. I think those that propose the Gaia Hypothesis have some good and interesting ideas, (assuming my basic understanding of it is correct), but have a long way to go as far as even testing it. I also think some of what is claimed by some in this area of thought gives off the definite wafting odor of cow manure, like this little gem from the introduction, "we lost our connection to the enigma of the cosmos."
      Sounds more like they found their connection to their drug dealer :)

    30. a_no_n

      "Open your mind" is what always raises the red flag for me...usually when people are demanding you open your mind, it's because they want to pour aforementioned cow dung into the hole and they don't want any pesky questions asked.

      I just fail to see how the world can be a living sentient creature...a hundred years ago that idea might have held water as an explanation but now, let's just say it would have to be pretty extraordinary evidence to convince me that a lake of flaming rock is alive in some way.

    31. Bluespeed

      Haha spirituality and religion are two different things.

    32. bringmeredwine

      Great comment!