--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <buttsplicer@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: > > > > > > But really, dude. What IS it if it isn't a flash of > > > recognition of someone you've done time with before in > > > another life? I'd like to hear your take on it, espec- > > > ially given your involvement in one of the most > > > unabashedly hopelessly romantic TV series in ages. > > > > > The poetry of Pushing Daisies was the result of a team of experts > > who knew how to manipulate images and sound in the most dynamic > > way to get a visceral reaction from the audience. Some of us on > > the crew are huge romantics other of us are not. But we are all > > good at creating the illusion of connection and magic on a > > flickering 2 dimensional surface. > > > > There is no romance in the process - it is carefully controlled > > frame by frame so the process is transparent and the eye is > > delighted. Its a mirage. > > I usually don't reply to my own posts. But when I was meditating I > realized I missed an important point about the manipulation at play > on a show like Pushing Daisies. > > The budget was more than 5 million dollars. > The script was worked and reworked over a period of several years. > It took a crew of about 80 people 18 12-hour plus days to shoot it. > I had about 8 weeks to cut the show aided by assistants, a dialog > editor, efx editor, music editor, Foley artist mixers, a visual > effects crew of a dozen people, and a composer and musicians. > > All of these people are dedicated to making the final 42 minutes > look fresh, spontaneous, and emotional. But the process itself is > anything but.
All very interesting, I...uh...guess. But did you notice that there was a question at the top of the post you're replying to with all this stuff about how the illusion of romance is created? That question was why I posted, not to hear more about the making of Pushing Daisies, as fascinating as that may be. I'll repeat the question: What is your explanation for "love at first sight?" Also, I'm going through the posts sequentially, and may just not have gotten to your reply to one of my other posts in which I also rapped a bit about reincarnation. But just in case there was no such reply, I thought that in that post I made a pretty clear case for me believing in reincarnation per- sonally, on the basis of my personal experiences, but that belief NOT being anything I would consider "truth" or claim to be fact. As I said, if the reincarnation theory is wrong, I will never know it, because I will just "blink out." ON THE OTHER HAND, if the reincarnation theory is correct, I may be in a better position to handle what's going on between death and rebirth than someone who was counting on the "blink out" theory. So, as I said, for me it's a bet with no "down side" to it, not a rigid belief. How does that equate in your mind to "Barry weigh- ing in as a believer?" My "belief" is a working hypothesis that is consistent with my experience, but one that I do NOT hold or promote as "truth," and one that I couldn't have been clearer about saying that I DON'T know whether it's true or not. I was certainly not trying to SELL my belief in reincarnation. On the other hand, Stu, you seem to be selling your belief that it doesn't exist pretty hard. Why? What does it matter to you what other people believe about what happens when they die? You seem to be so *certain* that you know. In fact, the degree of certainty that you are bringing to your posts on this subject is higher IMO than some of the people replying who believe in reincarnation. I don't think I've heard any of them say that they know "for sure" that reincarnation is a fact. But you seem to be saying that "blinking out" IS a fact. What's up with that? The way I presented my beliefs on this subject was pretty clear IMO. I went out of my way to say that NO ONE ON THIS PLANET knows for sure what happens when one dies. That statement included me, and it included you. I don't see how believing that one knows "for sure" that there is no afterlife is any different than believing that one knows "for sure" that there is. See what I'm getting at? "Reincarnation is a fact and that's that." "There is no reincarnation and that's that." Both statements sound pretty damned fundamentalist to me. I used neither of them, but as I read what you're writing you seem to be preaching the latter.
