The Zeitgeist Movement - Podcast show now online!

Post Reply New Topic

I don't have time for all the points. Some of them are reiterations anyway. But I will say I have no shame in learning from the arguments of others. I have chosen who to trust. So have you. Based on post history, I trust the logical reasoning abilities of Orwell, Awsomeglorious,Skafather etc. You have chosen to trust whoever came up with the RBE and TZM concepts. If I am hiding behind Orwell et. al., you are hiding behind whoever put together that website, since you didn't create the RBE/TZM concepts. However, the potential-for-violence tangent is all my own, if you are looking for original ideas. That one I didn't adopt from any other posters. So I get full credit or- more likely- blame.

But it is a little ironic that you are criticising me for adopting the stances of other posters while the entire RBE/TZM concept is not your own.



Actually it's like implying that Martin Luther King should be held responsible for the actions of the Black Panthers. (I don't think he was, but some at the time did.) But TZM is no MLK; what he advocated was possible.





Since right this second, if they feel like doing it. Everything is tweakable. There is no such thing as a plan that undergoes no revision. If you think violent nut jobs never get to tweak plans, read more history.

[Where exactly does it say, within natural law, that persecution of a homosexual man is wrong? I do not mean to provoke you, but you are validating objective moral ontology (which is commendable) but have not given me any ground for determining meta-ethics.

from point A to point Z

Tweak Peek topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement It is.

Unibombastic falsifutility topic

Is the Zeitgeist Movement a sound theory? AAU states that it is, and is the only answer. Scientific Method for social concerns.

Simple solutions for complex, global problems. As soon as there is a solution, the ZM vanishes, in a puff of smoke, going lightly up, like in dy-no-mite, COZ it can, and must. Whatever turns your crank.

This RBE, an outgrowth of the ZM, is a one-size-all-fits theory. If it is based on science, it must be right.

{I can hear Bill COZ-by saying "Riiiiiiiiiight". (In joke, so ask LeeJosepho. )}

As 91 pointed out in a previous post, the reasoning used to justify this theory is circular, going round and round the mulberrry bush, chasing its tail.

All theories have holes, or rips in them, being made/developed by fallible humans.

I would certainly be suspicious of any theory that purported to NOT have any rents in the rant.

This RBE statement, theory, idea, or whatever you call it,

but I am critical oft any one idea that will answer all of society's ills, a magic bullet, a suppository, to tweak social/economic constipation and make everything better.

In the marketplace of ideas, it is one idea, best exemplified in the Kibbutz Movement, still active in Eretz Israel, and it works on this scale. Globally, not the best option, or bandaid cure for large, festering wounds.

Scientific theories are often tested out in the field. Try your theory in a scaled down version that might work in the EU, as a test case. Then we will see how it functions, for starters.

Tweak Peek topic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement It is.

Ironic. So I looked. Apparently the original writers of that wiki article are trying to control the ways in which it gets edited, an action which in itself is generating controversy. It's in this linked bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Z ... t_Movement

I don't see how it is possible to have a global movement without people disagreeing. There are millions of people who will disagree simply on the grounds that it is global, a concept which a very large number of people find unacceptable. But lets not mention them. At least not in a Wiki.

Edited to add this website:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/ ... -movement/


He covers a lot of bases.

A Zeit for sore eyes topic

I was wondering about the canned responses, expecially about the so-called ad-hominem attacks by certain members here.



TZM doesn't deal with conspiracy theories.



Given your severe lack of objective information this accusation isn't suprising. Nevermind that TZM says nothing about a doomsday scenario acreditted to individuals such as Nostradamus, but instead a means to acheive a free and beautiful future for Earth. Yea, dun, dun DUUUUUN!

Was this left blank for a reason?




I understand why you would not do that. However it doesn't prove your case in doing so.



That is your choice. However it is no excuse to not have anything to say from your own mind.



Actually, it isn't a case of trust for me. I am brought around by logical and empirical data. Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph have been 2 of many individuals which have inspired my trains of thought. Coz they do so by using logic. If however they were to contravene the logic of what they have always talked about, then I don't consider them worthy of my attention. Like if a person was talking to you in a bar, if they are talking sense, they keep your attention, but if they stopped making sense they don't have your attention anymore do they?

So you see, not a case of trust. Coz regardless of what happens with their trains of thought, it makes no difference to what I know and push for in respect to wanting a better world.

If its a case of trust for you, then I really hope for your sake they don't betray it, otherwise you would be left with a contradicting train of thought.



For one thing I actually voice insights and knowledge of my own accumilation and consideration, culminating in my own input to the discussion of social change. You however are giving me virtually nothing but phrases to the effect of:

"Yea, what he said".

You don't hear me stating that I disagree with you because of what so-and-so said and throwing out names of people who I may or may not even have a comprehension about their theories.



No-one is blaming you for anything. I'm just correcting you on the fact that TZM are firm advocates of the non-aggression principle, hense any violence that ensues in the future would NOT be because of us, since we don't advocate violence. Given your limited knowledge of TZM at this time it is understandable how you would try to throw that strawman my way.



Are ANY of us the originators of the particular beliefs, stances, knowledge, or data that we hold dear? Have ANY of us invented empirical knowledge? No. Because all information is serial. We are all vessels of information relay. Our only originality comes from our unique life experience and how we culminate those ingredients of data and perceptions into novel ideas.

As such even Jacque Fresco who founded The Venus Project isn't completely original in his formenting of the RBE coz he didn't "create" all this inforential logic and scientific methodology by himself. He studied and learned from the people before him, just like they studied and learned from the people before them etc, etc, etc.

The very fact that I am saying all of this is because I have BUILT upon the inforential influence and inspiration that I have gained from JF, PJ and MANY, MANY other indivuduals through my life and through history.

Your compulsion to regurgitate other people's statements is why I am asking you to do your own thinking.



If you have done your own thinking here you would be able to detail to me the back-up information for your statements.



Then you are showing that you have no concept of how TZM DOES NOT associate with violent nut jobs. Coz it is NOT what we advocate.



Good to know. If you weren't so aggressively dissmissive of any idea that has the potential to grant you that kind of standard of living, then you could help us ALL attain it.

Well it still is really, its still an assumption here that the outside world is real, that your not a brain in a vat or that solipsism is not true. The problem with these things is that they cannot really be proven. If someone is a solipsist you really do not have any way of proving their view wrong, or more importantly, proving your view right.

Yes but this movement has not yet provided me with an grounding for thinking that natural laws exist to me.

These are common questions in epistemic philosophy and any movement that simply proclaims an evidence based approach finds itself stranded when making the case that these things are still objective.

One can call the belief in the reality of the outside world objective, however this entails validating something without evidence... something logical positivists could not do. Hence, there are few logical positivists these days.

Where exactly does it say, within natural law, that persecution of a homosexual man is wrong?

I do not mean to provoke you, but you are validating objective moral ontology (which is commendable) but have not given me any ground for determining meta-ethics.

There is no equivocation when you think about what actions and behaviours work towards either the benefit, or the detriment of others.

Interesting position... but what makes my giving benefit to others a moral duty?

Also, we can all imagine scenarios where the benefit of others runs directly counter to what we consider moral. For example, imagine a society that must eat advanced sentinent life in order to survive. Our death would assist in their flourishing and their wellbeing... do you get what I am driving at?

Fantastic to hear you say that... I agree with it in total. Many people on this forum are very guarded about saying that around a theist like myself.

Science friction, science fraction topic

Write a book, like L. Ron Hubbard did. (Not as a conspiracy theory. )

Get your government to test out these cashless economic theories, in your own backyards. Enjoy.

[What do you think we are already doing?

THEY ARE DOING IT topic

So continue to enjoy. Does the earth move for you?

The Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project are bogus.

At best they are a return to primitive barter, something that positively will not work for industrial economies.

The assumption that the economy can be controlled or governed by some kind of artificial intelligence is doubly bogus.

The economy cannot even be controlled by real human intelligence.

It is a chaotic process and consists of mostly contingent happening.

Zeitgeist = Nonsense on Stilts.

ruveyn