On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
robin, you writre:
I really wish the guy had done a course on the roal of "unifying" ideologies in world history before commencing his movies, and how not to base these in so-called fundamentals or rules you find in nature. Because you can find any rule, which will support whatever you want to believe in "life" and in "nature".
well, that is the old concept of dharma, the tao etc... which traditional societies believed, but they were also mostly sustainable (not always locally, but at least could not endanger the whole planet)
Yes, which sums up my point. "The" Tao can be used by different political philosophies from social to individual anarchism, laissez-faire economics, (neo-)liberalism, social-democracy, etc. And in Dharma, there can be very rigid forms of hierarchy. Thus, any "rule of nature" can be manipulated to serve your own world-view. For good and for worse.
so there is something to be said for an approach that recognizes the logic of life and nature, on which society and mind depends,
Maybe. But definitely not if you create an ideology out of that which you then enforce onto others (which is the case with most ideologies). Also nazism is based on a certain logic of life and nature. May be a bad logic and scientifically incorrect but still it is based around a conception of "fundamentals" of nature and life, and for many these were not even "unscientific" in those days. And also Buddhist have been staging war http://www.google.com/search?q=Buddhism+and+violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Buddhism
the question is, is this possible not as a belief and preconceived philosophical system, but as some kind of science, like the biophilic/scientific approach to urbanism, as proposed by say Nikos Salingaros,
Yeah, why not. As long as the rules of the game are open-source, there is trial-and-error in place and we are free to adapt ;-) By the way, wasn't there a discussion once on this list on the adaptibility of human nature and how this cannot be seen as a "fixed constant" but something that changes due to ethical, social, and political praxis (economic and religious being part of that) ? That's an interesting point since all(?) ideologies are based on a specific conceptualisation of human nature which in their turn, as far as I am aware, are more or less fixed constants/ given facts. I would like to know if there is any scholar that based its work around that idea, since it might also be the one that is closest to a p2p ideology in my point of view. Wow, we really went off-topic here, or maybe not even so :) Thanks.
Michel
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:33 PM, robin <[email protected]> wrote:
And I just read this quote by Peter Joseph himself: "The Zeitgeist Movement is a grass roots campaign to unify the world through a common ideology based on the fundamentals of life and nature. "
I really wish the guy had done a course on the roal of "unifying" ideologies in world history before commencing his movies, and how not to base these in so-called fundamentals or rules you find in nature. Because you can find any rule, which will support whatever you want to believe in "life" and in "nature".
Or maybe he did follow a course and he is involved in a conspiracy to take over the world ;)