Responding to your response to Paula's response to your post (I'm just messin' wit' yo' meta...): The thing is, even if _The Secret_ in itself is harmless, it connects with a whole lot of social attitudes and manipulative use of same that are anything but harmless. Really, Stephen Colbert was onto something when he coined the word "truthiness." See that article Jestaplero links to about the Republicans' use of symbolic gay-bashing: that's another example of people's willingness to put perception and impression well above reality.

 

I would research this but I think it would only make me angrier. People will believe anything. I had a Scientologist accuse me of bigotry because I accused Dianetics of being a fraud.

 

So, 2fs, you have seen the film?

 

No - but I'm not addressing the film. I'm addressing what I've read about it. Is what I've read about factually incorrect?

 

No - but I'm not addressing the film. I'm addressing what I've read about it.

Ok...

I havent seen An Inconvenient Truth, but I read a lot of reviews for it (some quite vehemently opposed to it). But I'm not in a position to pass any kind of detailed judgment about the film or its subject matter until I see it myself. I thought that was the deal.

Would you let one of your students write about a book she hadn't read?

Is what I've read about factually incorrect?

You've been reading people's negative opinions about the movie (and about Oprah), and reading about excerpts from the book (the don't-look-at-fatso part) that people found weird or objectionable.

Opinions can't be factually correct or incorrect, and a writer can quote lots of things out of context that are going to sound wacky and support his/her views.

Look, I'm not shilling for the movie. I've seen it--it's fluffy, corny, it's PR for some self-help writers who want to sell books, it touches superficially on concepts that require much deeper reflection, and it's definitely not a "secret"--these are concepts as old as the hills.

(It's basically about setting intentions, deliberately creating the life you want as opposed to just passively ambling along, and having faith.)

But a) I see nothing "harmful" about it, in the short or long term; b) it has inspired a lot of people to delve into the topic more, to their own benefit; and c) I'm surprised that you would make all these assumptions and get all up in arms (like the elders in Footloose decrying lindy-hopping or whatever) without actually having seen the movie .

Also: you'd said The thing is, even if _The Secret_ in itself is harmless, it connects with a whole lot of social attitudes and manipulative use of same that are anything but harmless.

That's a pretty sweeping condemnation for one little film, and it's based on a debate that, like the subject matter of The Secret, is as old as the hills. Faith vs. reason, hope as a motivator vs. hope as a narcotic, taking responsibility for things that happpen vs. blaming the victim, etc.

This isn't the place to cover these issues, and since people have been debating them for eons, I don't think it's ever going to get resolved.

My adult life has been one long experiment in playing with and testing these concepts, and the experiment continues. For whatever reason, I do tend fall on the side of "faith" and "we create reality," but I am not militant about it and would never push that on anyone. I respect the fact that your findings and beliefs may be different, and it's pointless and tedious to get into that here.

We're all blind men with the elephant. [insert elephant noise] Let these particular blind men have their film.