Yoko? Oh, no!
For somebody who listens to his fair share of “hippy music”, I have very little tolerance for new-agey bullshit. Not only is it, for the most part, every bit as ridiculous as anything being preached on the 700 Club (but to its credit, not nearly as xenophobic), but New Age beliefs always seem to give themselves faux credibility by wrapping themselves in scientific terms. This excerpt from a letter by Yoko Ono is a good example of what I’m talking about :
- The second good news has come from an experiment done by a Japanese scientist, Masaru Emoto, who has discovered and demonstrated that “water reads.” This is unbelievable information, but it’s true. To put it simply, Emoto put water in a bottle, put a label on the bottle with a word written on it facing inside the bottle. He then froze the water and examined the crystal created by the water under a microscope. The photos of the crystals show, that when you write a word such as, love, regardless of which language, the water creates a beautiful crystal. When you write “happiness” it also creates a beautiful crystal. But when you write “unhappiness” it cannot form a crystal. Interestingly, the word “Hell” created terrible dirty water. Don’t ask me why! (Messages from Water: Masaru Emoto, translated in English)
Sentences create equally fascinating results. When you write “how pretty you are!”, it creates a beautiful crystal, whereas “you stupid guy!” creates muddy, ugliness, reminiscent of extremely polluted water. The water reacts to very delicate differences, too. When you write “you better do it!” it creates a muddyness like an expression of rebellion. However, it creates a beautiful crystal if you write “let’s do it, shall we?” Of course, the biggest hit is “I love you.” There is no limit to how much this sentence in many different languages can do to clean the water and create beautiful crystals. The muddiest, polluted water can become clean.
The water not only reacts to the written words but to music. When music was played to the water, many beautiful crystals were created. It was interesting for me that the song “imagine” created a crystal very similar to the word “angels.”
And, of course, 80 percent of our bodies are made up of water! What does that mean?
We are probably making very dangerously muddy people as our opposition by constantly throwing verbal attacks at them. If we make them muddy, we will pretty soon become muddy, too. Just by sending good words, it not only clears the people you send the good words to, but it clears you, too. So if you are insulting someone, that is the same as insulting yourself. All this is demonstrated by the photos of the waters and their crystals.
Water knows how to read?! Seriously, that’s one of the craziest fucking things I’ve ever read. How does water react if you make a typo? Or if you write something neutral like “I Made Some Brownies and They Were Pretty Good”? Can water read Klingon?
Just because someone uses the words “experiment” and “science” doesn’t mean that’s it’s automatically true. So next time somebody says something like “There was this scientists who proved in his lab that women are made out of ribs”, just remind him/her that until the experiment is submitted to peer review and the findings are verified through repeated testing, those results are essentially worthless.
11 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
All it takes to clean polluted water is to freeze it in proximity to happy messages?
Damn, why the hell are we worried about water polution? This has got to be easier than filtering it.
Comment by JoeF — November 26, 2003 @ 12:08 pm
I wonder if scratching positive messages on the arms and legs of republicans will clean up their dirty souls?
Comment by The Eligible Ross Lincoln — November 26, 2003 @ 12:12 pm
Since water can read and we are 80% water shouldn’t the illiteracy rate be about 20%?
Comment by Joshie — November 26, 2003 @ 2:41 pm
You’re way off on this one. The fact that water can read is proven. The only reason I keep magazines next to the toilet is because my piss is a more prolific reader than I am. Furthermore, my snot sings in a beautiful, lilting voice a bit like Sarah McLaughlin or Kate Bush. My shit, however, just sits there and stinks up the place. I’m not sure if that’s a commentary on my life, or if it really IS just inanimate fecal matter.
Comment by Mark Spittle — November 26, 2003 @ 7:01 pm
Let’s see, first off, Ono is writing about the results of experiments reported by a scientist, yet you treat as if this is something she came up with out of thin air. Second, the idea she’s attempting to express - that human beings respond poorly to verbal abuse and positively to verbal affirmation - is hardly outlandish. But you know, it’s just so much fun to attack that slant-eyed bitch that broke up the Beatles! And I though Al Capp was dead…
Comment by dave — November 28, 2003 @ 3:01 pm
Second, the idea she’s attempting to express - that human beings respond poorly to verbal abuse and positively to verbal affirmation - is hardly outlandish.
Did you not read what I wrote? The idea that water can read is very outlandish. In fact, it’s just plain retarded.
But you know, it’s just so much fun to attack that slant-eyed bitch that broke up the Beatles!
I don’t remember saying anything about Yoko’s race or the breakup of the Beatles. In fact, I find it incredibly offensive that you would imply that my criticism is racist in nature. If you honestly think that my post was based on something other than a pointed criticism on a specific subject, please back up your attacks with some sort of evidence.
And for the record, I don’t think Yoko broke up the Beatles. The Lord did, because he was still pissed about John’s “bigger than Jesus” remark.
By the way, that last remark was a joke. If you spent more than a couple minutes on my site, you’ll see that I tend to do that a lot.
Comment by greg — November 28, 2003 @ 3:46 pm
I was sent this article by someone and my first reaction to it was, what a bunch of BS! I’m always skeptical and use discursive reasoning in everything I read or hear.
After a bit of reflection, this idea actually doesn’t seem so outlandish. You’re missing the point if you’re taking the title, ‘Water can read’ as literal. The title itself is very misleading. The point isn’t that water can literally read, but that there is a basic foundation for the vibrational relationship between words we use in nature and their effects upon water.
The basic principles are this : 1) Spoken language admits sound 2) Sound admits vibration 3) Vibration is registered in water.
Now the difficult concept to grasp and bridge together is the idea that spoken language somehow resonates in a written word. The premise that is being used to bridge this gap is the following. The source of life = water = energy. If this is true then all ‘things’ are working in conjunction with one another (similar premise to the theory of relativity) and these vibrations manifest in written and spoken language and can be registered in water.
Now that I’ve thought about it more, because I only got this article about 30 minutes ago, there may be much more validity to Dr. Emoto’s hypothesis then I initially thought there to be.
Comment by John — December 15, 2003 @ 1:31 pm
I have to agree with John. I think people who say that this kind of experiment is some “wacky new age scam”, don’t realise that the “new age” isn’t an airy fairy concept, it is right HERE. This is part of a NEW LEVEL of science that the traditional scientist don’t like because it is “new” and they don’t understand it (that’s why they don’t get funded and therefore recognised). We are powerful beings in a powerful universe and it is the truth of that, that will be the best technology we have ever discovered. Good on you Masaru Emoto. May people listen to you and not be afraid to realise how powerful they are and not be afraid to take resonsabilty for themselves and the part they take on this planet.
Comment by Nettie — December 18, 2003 @ 5:22 am
“…very dangerously muddy people…” ?
Let’s say it wasn’t Yoko? Oh No! - say it was someone with a smaller soapbox, or one with none at all. What then would you think of literate water?
You’re reading a mag in your favorite cafe and some kook tells you your coffee is reading the article too. Your reaction?
Comment by kex — December 19, 2003 @ 3:35 pm
Kex,
Whether Yoko wrote that letter or not, it has nothing to do with the validity of Dr. Emoto’s experiments. Dr. Emoto’s work is independent of Yoko using it in a peaceful letter.
I have no reaction to your question. I may ask him if he has the same understanding as I do, which is the following :
The basic principles are this : 1) Spoken language admits sound 2) Sound admits vibration 3) Vibration is registered in water.
Now the difficult concept to grasp and bridge together is the idea that spoken language somehow resonates in a written word. The premise that is being used to bridge this gap is the following : The source of life = water = energy. If this is true then all ‘things’ are working in conjunction with one another (similar premise to the theory of relativity) and these vibrations manifest in written and spoken language and can be registered in water. Therefore we can scientifically see the effects of our energy upon ‘things’ and it lends credence to the concept that there is an inter-dependency of all ‘things’.
The following model can also be offered :
Soul (or psyche) : Life :: body : water
To the degree that our soul participates in ‘goodness’ is to the degree that the effects of that participation will reflect in our body. Our life will register the effects of what we participate in at a soul level(Don’t be confused by this term, I mean psyche or your persona. What you commonly call I), so to our body will register the effects of it’s participation with soul through water.
Comment by John — December 22, 2003 @ 7:46 pm
The point is not really if the science she talks about fits your standards of what IS science…its to demonstrate simply that water has intelligence, it knows and contains all the information to make a living person like ourselves operate…it does contain all the emotions and all the words in it, whether we know it or not…
to the numb skeptics its probably irrelevant the fact we are composed 70% water…once again, 7/10 of you…i dont suppose you reeaaly think that the water is just there, sitting around, oblivious to you as you are to it???….
Please show more appreciation and respect to H2O and yourselves (being composed of such), and dont just attempt to call crap and experiment that at least tries to show that water knows a lot more about us than we about water…
Obviously, to the short minded, thats too much of a broad concept to fit in the head, and all sit confortably with the logical cancellations of cartesian impotence..
Comment by tui — July 16, 2004 @ 2:47 am