Is Anyone Interested in Having a REASONABLE discussion about Zeitgiest's Ideas
Submitted by MikeLawson on Wed, 10/15/2008 - 18:20
I personally don't see how to get from our current state of affairs to "Venus" in one generation. And that's what I want to discuss. How do we get there? It's not a matter of imagining life without money; I am a highly educated good ole boy who's forgotten more than most folks ever learn. I am not interested in any fights, but I would love to have an honest discussion of this idea. We do need an ultimate goal, but we have to know if it is attainable or if the premises laid out are even valid.
Here's a couple of my concerns:
They seem to ascribe the "western economic bubble" mentality to all people of the world and I know that many cultures have resisted the modern western system already. I want to know if the venus plan would seek to have these types of people "modernize" as well?
Another is the assertion that before civilization the world was united and working for a common purpose is not really accurate in the context he describes it. The people of the world before agriculture primarily lived in small family groups and lived 100% off the land. They had no money and were very happy. But with agriculture came surplus and from surplus came the ability for people to engage in activities not directly related to food production for the majority of their days. As I see it, our system does not have it's roots in scarcity, but in surplus.
I have more thoughts, but those are my biggies
Sinking feeling
I just watched the film for the first time last night and when it was over I felt like I needed some Mylanta. This morning I started fact-checking claims, a process that will probably take months. The real strength of the film so far, just like Dan Brown's films, are the questions they raise. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Jon Adams, and many other founders were Deists and only affiliated with Christianity to the extent of keeping themselves from being socially and financially ruined for not publically enjoying the Christian kool aid. After centuries of oppression ranging from murder to social ostersizeation, people can finally debate these issues out in the open without fear of anything worse than philosophical defamation. I have seen many on these threads basing the core of their argument against this movie on the religious views of its producers. Arguments from this angle miss the point entirely. We should be fact checking Zeitgeist to the letter and if we find that the its core arguments have merit then maybe it’s time to start figuring out how to deal with those that have used our myths and superstitions against us rather than fighting among ourselves to protect our religious positions. Even if the movie's claims against Christianity turn out to be false, the charge that it is being used to control us cannot be allowed to lie uninvestigated.
Note, it is not enough to say that the film over relies on secondary sources. Historically, we KNOW that the church destroyed primary sources that it labeled as heretical and murdered those who had a problem with such barbaric behavior. It is hardly academic to then now claim success in the argument for a lack of "primary sources." With this reasoning I could destroy evidence needed in court, the jury could be aware that I destroyed it, but allow me to win based upon my closing remarks that the other side lacked the evidence I am known to have destroyed. In the absence of primary source support, it would be reasonable to consider points made IF the arguing side could show voluminous secondary source information which could at least produce a strong inductive argument. Yes, even a strong inductive argument will not produce a logical certainty; it will at the very least justify belief. To argue otherwise is to admit that Christianity IS patently false since it also can achieve nothing more than inductive strength which when judged strong enough may or may not produce justified belief depending on the evidence allowed.
Theologians have debated the relative strength of the inductive argument for Christianity for a very long time with mixed results. I for one am refreshed to see some new thought and evidence injected into the discussion.
RJ Harris
Norman, OK
Strength and Honor
RJ Harris
Constitutional Conservative Republican
US Congressional Candidate
Oklahoma 4th District
www.rjharris2010.com
No
No
Zeitgeist hype
I was criticized for my comment below "Stop the Zeitgeist hype". I'm to blame that my perhabs somehow crude comment gave the impression I want to supress a discussion. And my comment was unfair to MikeLawson since he raised three interesting questions. So I bumped his old thread as some kind of apology too.
1. The main weak point of the film is the cloudiness of its implied assumption that technical progress will lead to a better society. History shows that new technologies have ambivalent repercussions on society. Though it always does improve the ability of man to manipulate his situation, at the same time it destroys most the time craftmanship, traditional lifestyles and even lifes. The introcuction of the power loom in the 19th century made clothing cheaper and easier to produce. At the same time it made the skills of the weavers who worked as craftsmen obsolete, made them unemployed and brought them and their families into misery and death. Mass motorization increased the personal abilty to travel distances in short time, but it made horsemanship in all forms to an expansive hobby. It lead to more traffic death and pollution and the marginalization of smaller communities due to the ability of people to travel to the big cities to work, learn and spend their leisure time.
I don't know, why all the new technologies depicted in the filmshall have only good effects to the personal liberty and welfare.
2. The question, if the 'Venus plan' is designed to go global is another crucial point. Though I generally share the assumption that mankind aspires the western individualistic lifestyle, in real life there will be serious frictions. Many people (like some critcs on the DP) will see the 'Venus plan' as another western attempt to assimilate them to a globalized lifestyle. Here again the lack of any specific political concept about how to achieve the goals of the Venus plan is evident.
3. Mike's third point is itself a critic of the film makers view on history. I agree (though it is difficult to prove if mankind was happier before the introduction of agriculture) and again this aspect shows how blured their assumptions are. So (if I get this right) mankind was happy before civilization and after our technology has reached a certain level, mankind wil be happy again ? Doesn't sound very convincing, given that all this techno stuff was invented by civilization.
I called the "discussion" about Zeitgeist addendum a 'hype' since the relentless advocacy of the film by certain users as well as some overreactions by the critics have inflated the discussion out of proportion. Personally I find the significance of this film overrated.
Freedom brings People together
Fellowship of the White Rose
Thanks for noticing
I really think it's lunacy. When I posted this, attacks were flying left and right and I had some questions I wanted these guys to confront. They still haven't. Like how would you get all the people in the world to spontaneously give up their entire value system? I think they leave humans out of the equation. Guys like those kind of freak me out.
I know it's a movie.
What does the word Zeitgiest mean?
cribbed this from wiki : )
literally translated: Zeit, time; Geist, spirit, meaning "the spirit of the age and its society". The word zeitgeist describes the intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate of an era or also a trend. In German, the word has more layers of meaning than the English translation, including the fact that Zeitgeist can only be observed for past events.
Also check out :
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2007/
This is an application (probably the inspiration the filmmakers used to title the documentary) that allows you to see/follow trends over a period of time. You can type in a keyword like say "Elizabeth Kucinich" and you will see any interest in her over the course of the year/years- maybe see a spike in interest around the time of the Dem debates. A helpful tool in , amongst other things, guageing public interest in any specific topic.
Live Free or Diebold
Good explanation
Actually I don't know why the film was called 'Zeitgeist'.Was it intended to make it sound more important?
Freedom brings People together
Fellowship of the White Rose
Popularized by Hegel.
Yes, THAT Hegel who also popularized the Hegelian Dialectic..
GOLD (Real Money), PEACE & PROSPERITY by Ron Paul
The whole premise of this movie is flawed. The dude is clueless about what REAL money is and it's affect on society.
Wake up Fedor, you're a clueless shill mate. CLUELESS.
GOLD, PEACE & PROSPERITY... by Ron Paul
http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf
^^^ Completely destroys the premise of this bullshit film...
How about you educate yourself mate? Hmmm?
Please refute Ron Paul's arguments contained within the PDF.
Okay..heres what i think..i
Okay..heres what i think..i think its messed up for people to get in on a thread just to talk crap to someone...
if a guy or gal want to have a convo about something that you disagree with then just stay out of the thread and let those that want to talk talk...
the guy clearly stated that he didnt want to fight about it but just have an honest discussion yet some people need to come on and bring negativity...
im an atheist who stays out of the christian threads..so why not have a bit of respect and do the same with other topics...
now mike..im not totally convinced on the zeitgeist thing but i do enjoy it and find it intruiging..so id be willing to hold a reasonable conversation with you...
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
Nope
Not me.
NO
Stop the Zeitgeist hype.
Freedom brings People together
Fellowship of the White Rose
We are having a discussion
and we will NOT stop.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
You will not stop your DELUSIONS...
That is remarkably crystal clear....
:)
More insults
We will discuss this FOREVER. Keep them coming conza88. Zeitgeist will be on the front page for a very, very long time.
T-R-O-L-L
It's self-evident. You've admitted it..
*Round of applause*
So you want people to come
So you want people to come together under freedom but at the same time you want us to stop speaking our minds about our beliefs, because they differ from yours. YaY Freedom!
and doesn't freedom mean not
and doesn't freedom mean not telling people what to do???
?"NO Stop the Zeitgeist hype."?
If the CREATOR of this site had not openly promoted the movie in a favorable light then I could see how discussing this movie would be out of place, but since that is not the case. . .
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
Did you read my questions?
....
Podcast
I discussed some things in my podcast this last episode that deal with this topic, not specifically ZA(which I do mention) but the idea of transitioning from this dying culture to a new one! Also, many of the things I listed below as being practical ways to begin creating a real change(as compared to an Obama type change) are covered!
http://blacklightattic.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2008-10-15T04_...
Perhaps some of my comments will spur thoughts for you guys.
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
I'm listening to you now
...
What'd you think, Mike?
What'd you think, Mike?
--
Host, The Next Step Podcast
http://thenextstep.podomatic.com
It was good
The obscure Floyd stuff was great. I haven't heard those in years.
not even interested in watching it!
I've been in this fight for years without it, and I have what I need to continue.
It seems to have quite a loyal following though, but it also seems to promote much division, at least from the reactions I see online.
This movement needs uniting projects and movies, not divisive ones.
They are planning the world after the fight
I don't want to fight for a tyranny. It's well worth watching. trolls cause division movies don't.
"Only an open mind can grow"
nice slogan
you sound like a politician.
but the reality is that strong and differing opinions can cause division, pushing your view of a movie on people that disagree causes division. Some people seem to be pushing this movie like it was a religion and they are "evangelizing" for converts...that can cause division.
I agree - a movie doesn't cause division, a fanatical follower and proselytizer of an opinion or worldview espoused in a movie can cause division.
I guess I have to watch it now, since you Zeitgeistians finally roped me into the conversation!
You got it wrong
Several members simply thought Zeitgeist was interesting. No big deal. The movie had some neat ideas in it. We were attacked over and over by other DP members who claimed it was a secret NWO tool to convert us, etc, etc. No one claimed it was the new religion. The lesson learned here is, be careful who you attack. You may get a lot more of a subject then you bargained for :)
wortguy, I'm NOT a zeitgeister
I hope my comments and questions on this thread have nade that QUITE clear. It's really the trolls that are creating the division on this thing. It's a shame to see how many young people are getting pulled into it without really thinking it through. Rather than fighting with them and arguing, I wanted to try to spark a real discussion to flesh out the "how's" of this idea.
actually
I got stuff I need to read. I won't waste my time with this movie now. Maybe someday.
I believe Zeitgeist is a
I believe Zeitgeist is a great idea and it made me think of a system without money for the entire world. I believe in order for human beings to evolve into something far greater than anyone can imagine we NEED to get rid of money completely. This is huge people! I can name many many great things that can come from this, but really cannot come up with a real good answer as to why money is good at all anymore. It served it's purpose very well during the industrial revolution and the technology revolution. If you truly want to live in a great world without poverty, hatred, greed, and crime anywhere on this planet. Then the only way is without money. All money causes is hatred, crime, greed, corruption, poverty, depression, etc. the list goes on. This is a new age, we lived trough allot of stuff we wouldn't want our children and grandchildren to live through. If you don't think this is possible then you really don't have allot of faith in humanity. Period! I have great faith in humanity as a whole and I believe it is more possible now than in any other time in history. There is allot more going on outside our planet and we'll never get there if we keep fighting each other on stupid non issues.
So, how do we get there without tyranny or mass death??
...
I don't have all the
I don't have all the answers. I don't understand why there would have to be tyranny or mass death. It would not happen over night obviously but we are evolving at faster and faster speed every year now. Look at the history of this planet since the big bang, things have been getting better and better. Our consciousness is evolving people and no matter what these people do it is happening. Watch the following video if you want to really understand scientifically what consciousness is and can be. The Mayan's were pretty smart and it falls right in line with this. We are talking about our future not our past.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ian+lungold&www_google...
Secession.
Shatter the myth of legitimacy that the federal government propogates. Dismiss the federal government
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
Secession is the answer. I
Secession is the answer.
I have to ask: If you favor secession, why do you favor Open Borders..? It doesn't make sense to me...secessionism, it would seem, is a pro-autonomy position. Open borders is not.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
and if my state passes a law that infringes on a creator-endowed
right, what recourse do I have?
What if another country invades us militarily, who will take central command?
A limited federal government is a brilliant idea.
It's an idea based on a social convention.
Sovereigns who wished to remain free would band together and drive out invaders, they would be incentivized to do so. 'Central command' is an outdated philosophy that stands on the idea that some men (the 'rulers') are better qualified to decide than others (the 'subjects'). I reject this notion and declare it absurd. As far as the state infringing on your rights, most of this is monkey see monkey do, blind following of federal policy. States, if they continued to exist in their present forms, would move more toward the proclivities of their citizens. It's much easier to influence policy in one state than it is to change the federal government.
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
You're very young aren't you?
You could learn from us old guys if you'd settle down a bit. go to www.hideyourride.com/MAD and watch the videos in order. It will enlighten you a little bit. I mean no harm. I can tell you are young and have a lot of ideas, but they are based on a very narrow frame of reference. I can help you grow your frustration with the state system into something much more honed.
Free people with free choice
will very often make good decisions. Those that do not will suffer the consequences of their foolishness. When disputes arise, they could be arbitrated privately, and those who try to dodge the decisions of arbitrators would have a hard time contracting for any services, thus impelling them to deal fairly and honestly with their neighbors. Choices made by individuals are always valid as long as no one else is being harmed by them. Choices that *you* find morally repugnant could still be valid choices for free men and women to make. The key is for people to allow their neighbors to make their own choices, and then they will be free to do the same. Arguments that society is 'too complex' for this to work are logically inconsistent. What are governments comprised of? People! So what is it exactly that makes the government people more qualified to choose for me than I am? No government can ever 'represent' me and my neighbor across the street at the same time, because we have different values, skills, and goals. Inventing rules and implementing blanket policies over soveriegns will always cause conflicts, because we are all different from one another. Without government logic would dictate that there would be less conflict among sovereigns, not more.
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
That's the beauty of the constitution
Already thought of that. Limited power and a court system. Put aside corruption. The constitution lays out the framework for a great system.
Is Anyone Interested in Having a REASONABLE discussion about Zei
Ummmm. Yes._
_____________________
______________________
The "Hemp Car" still required a mold
The technology is "carbon fiber" and hemp is the best by far candidate for the process. It all has to do with how many fibers per square inch and hemp beats all other sources. Watch this video series.
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=46
The point is simple tools are still required no matter what you build a car out of.
http://RevolutionaryPolitics.com
http://RevolutionaryPolitics.com
I agree that the tools exist
But not that the users are smarter than our ancestors. I don't think people are incapable of living in a cooperative society, but I'm not convinced that a super advanced society is the right setting for such a society.
?
"It's not going anywhere and it's goals are clearly contrary to our movement, But it has the potential to actually take people from us."
You sound afraid. Why do you fear Zeitgeist?
I don't fear zeitgeist
It is something that is beyond our immediate goals. We can't skip from the oligarchy we are in to the venus system and I don't want good freedom fighters to stop looking at the real enemies of humanity to seek a change in the underlying system. As I have said many times, this system could be initiated rather quickly in the aftermath of a great loss of life. I don't want my brothers and sisters, you included, to get caught up in a carefully crafted agenda. I do it for love. And an intellectual discussion is always fun. We were doing well I thought.
Mike, the Venus Project requires true Individuals
We are on that path. It will not happen over night, but this Revolution is creating the kinds of people that could make it work.
As long as people's rights are protected
and no one is hurt. It is a worthwile goal.
My concern is not the desination but the voyage.
I agree
and captains must be allowed to discuss possible routes and change their course if they are headed for danger. Even routes that have never been tried before.
On that we can agree.
You know, the constitution doesn't necesarily contradict with any of the ideals of zeitgeist.
?
"It's not going anywhere and it's goals are clearly contrary to our movement, But it has the potential to actually take people from us."
You sound afraid. Why do you fear Zeitgeist?
Zeitgeist Addendum in text?
I have trouble with videos, too slow. Reading is much better for me, I can cover a lot more territory quicker.
So is there a translation of the movie somewhere? I don't want to spend two hours of my life watching a movie when I could read the content in 15 minutes...
Meanwhile, I'll offer a few ideas based on comments I've read about the movie...
Can I imagine a world without money? Easily. And it could be a wonderful place to live. I'd recommend a Culture book by Iain Banks (Matter, Player of Games, etc.). If our technology is sufficiently advanced, a world without money is preferable. No, we're not there yet because technology is not that advanced yet.
But we're getting there. Check out Ray Kurzweil and some of his books. He thinks 20 or 30 years is enough to do it.