With a tagline like Ideas worth spreading, you would expect Ted to be open to disruptive ideas that challenge the status quo. Well this is not always the case. Those two Banned Ted Talks might change your perspective on Ted. It certainly did for me. More than the censorship itself that naturally raises question about motives, it is more the nature of the subject matter censored that are surprising.
Is there a war on consciousness?
With an event themed Visions for transition: challenging existing paradigms and redefining values (for a more beautiful world) you would expect a welcoming environment for controversial approaches of reality instead of two banned Ted Talks. It does not seem that the scientific board of Ted agreed. Is it because Graham Hancock suggested than an altered state of consciousness through Ayawaska could largely benefit humanity? Or is it because he showed how certain states of consciousness are valued more than others because they are profitable? Is it because Rupert Sheldrake ridiculed mainstream science by destroying its foundational dogmas? Or is it because he demonstrated the obvious obsolescence of the materialistic world view?
Whatever the right answer is, we have two banned Ted Talks, and it should raise questions. While it was removed on Ted’s youtube channel, many people re-uploaled the videos. This censorship sparked a big controversy. There’s no doubt in my mind that there’s a deliberate will to maintain outdated paradigms. But for what reason? For commerce? For control? I will let you form your own opinion.
You can access the closing statement of TED on the talks and the (many) comments here.
Graham Hancock | The War on Consciousness
You can access Ted’s position on Graham Hancock’s talk here.
Access the full transcript of the talk here. Here’s my favorite portion.
“We have a love-affair in our society with alcohol; we glorify this most boring of drugs despite the terrible consequences that it often has. And of course we love our stimulants, our tea, our coffee, our energy drinks, our sugar, and huge industries are built around these substances which are valued because of the way they alter consciousness.
But what all these approved altered states of consciousness have in common is that none of them contradict or conflict with the basic state of consciousness valued by our society, which I would call the alert, problem-solving state of consciousness, which is good for the more mundane aspects of science. It’s good for the prosecution of warfare, it’s good for commerce, it’s good for politics, but I think everybody realizes that the promise of a society over-monopolistically based on this state of consciousness has proved hollow.” –Graham Hancock
Rupert Sheldrake | The Science Delusion
You can access Ted’s position on Rupert Sheldrake’s talk here.
Access the full transcript of the talk here. Here’s my favorite portions.
“There’s a conflict in the heart of science between science as a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis and collective investigation, and science as a belief system or a world view. And unfortunately the world view aspect of science has come to inhibit and constrict the free inquiry which is the very lifeblood of the scientific endeavor.”
“Since the late 19th century, science has been conducted under the aspect of a belief system or a world view which is essentially that of materialism — philosophical materialism. And the sciences are now wholly owned subsidiaries of the materialist worldview. I think that as we break out of it, the sciences will be regenerated.”
“In an evolutionary universe, why shouldn’t the laws themselves evolve? After all, human laws do, and the idea of laws of nature is based on a metaphor with human laws. It’s a very anthropocentric metaphor; only humans have laws. In fact, only civilized societies have laws. As C.S. Lewis once said, to say that a stone falls to earth because it’s obeying a law makes it a man, and even a citizen. It’s a metaphor that we’ve got so used to we forget it’s a metaphor.” –Rupert Sheldrake