Robin there is now so much out there, as well as a seeming copryright claim that the original may have disappeared, that I no longer know where to start, I'd like to go to the whole series from the beginning onwards, can you make a recommendation, or anyone else on this list, Michel -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Robin there is now so much out there, as well as a seeming copryright claim that the original may have disappeared, that I no longer know where to start,
ha, that is interesting! where did you see that? Everything is still on bittorrent though :)
I'd like to go to the whole series from the beginning onwards
I actually don't really recommend watching them. The first movie was the one that was heavily biased and based on all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories. The 2nd was more balanced and introduces the Venus Project as the real alternative. Now we also have a third that next week will be released on dvd/ internet and was released through independent/ underground cinemas this week. The first one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie You can go through the tanscript much quicker than watching it: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Zeitgeist,_The_Movi... The second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Joseph#Zeitgeist:_Addendum & http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Zeitgeist_Addendum 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 ;)
the copyright claim issue is on youtube, there seem to be an endless variety of excerpted and remastered versions now so, thanks, really hope you can introduce a critical perspective on this, Michel On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:33 PM, robin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Robin there is now so much out there, as well as a seeming copryright claim that the original may have disappeared, that I no longer know where to start,
ha, that is interesting! where did you see that? Everything is still on bittorrent though :)
I'd like to go to the whole series from the beginning onwards
I actually don't really recommend watching them. The first movie was the one that was heavily biased and based on all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories. The 2nd was more balanced and introduces the Venus Project as the real alternative. Now we also have a third that next week will be released on dvd/ internet and was released through independent/ underground cinemas this week.
The first one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie
You can go through the tanscript much quicker than watching it:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Zeitgeist,_The_Movi...
The second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Joseph#Zeitgeist:_Addendum & http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Zeitgeist_Addendum
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 ;)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
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) so there is something to be said for an approach that recognizes the logic of life and nature, on which society and mind depends, 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, Michel On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:33 PM, robin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
Robin there is now so much out there, as well as a seeming copryright claim that the original may have disappeared, that I no longer know where to start,
ha, that is interesting! where did you see that? Everything is still on bittorrent though :)
I'd like to go to the whole series from the beginning onwards
I actually don't really recommend watching them. The first movie was the one that was heavily biased and based on all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories. The 2nd was more balanced and introduces the Venus Project as the real alternative. Now we also have a third that next week will be released on dvd/ internet and was released through independent/ underground cinemas this week.
The first one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist:_The_Movie
You can go through the tanscript much quicker than watching it:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Zeitgeist,_The_Movi...
The second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Joseph#Zeitgeist:_Addendum & http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/wiki/index.php?title=Zeitgeist_Addendum
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 ;)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
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 ;)
could you describe in a little more detail, that 'scholar' and what he should be thinking ? On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:14 PM, robin <[email protected]> wrote:
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 ;)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
Hi Michel, On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
could you describe in a little more detail, that 'scholar' and what he should be thinking ?
Ah, I found what I was looking for. I was referring to this blog post of yours: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/does-human-nature-need-to-change-for-a-p2p-tra... I am wondering who within (political) philosophy said similar things, about "human nature" that transforms along with changes in our ethical believes and social practices. I don't think I ever read anything about that and would like to research more. Thanks! Robin. p.s. The comment on that blog-post is a nice example of a non-free ideology: "Naturism is the only (!) way for man (!) to become one with the world". Instead of: could be a way for people/ humanity/ to feel (more) in peace. And also: "they will enable mankind to one day live as pure and unaltered as Mother Nature intended" Who is this person to decide if I am as pure + unaltered as nature wants?
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:15 PM, robin <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michel,
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
could you describe in a little more detail, that 'scholar' and what he should be thinking ?
Ah, I found what I was looking for. I was referring to this blog post of yours: http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/does-human-nature-need-to-change-for-a-p2p-tra...
I am wondering who within (political) philosophy said similar things, about "human nature" that transforms along with changes in our ethical believes and social practices.
ah. Lol. Wikipedia has the answer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature Against this idea of a fixed human nature, the relative malleability of man has been argued especially strongly in recent centuries - firstly by early modernists such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and since the mid-19th century, by thinkers such as Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, structuralists and postmodernists. Still more recent scientific perspectives such as behaviorism, determinism, and the chemical model within modern psychiatry and psychology, claim to be neutral regarding human nature. They can be offered to explain its origins and underlying mechanisms, or to demonstrate capacities for change and diversity which would arguably violate the concept of a fixed human nature. /me filling silly
Dear Robin, I think you may find Clare Graves interesting, see http://p2pfoundation.net/Clare_Graves_on_his_Levels_of_Existence_psychology, but beware of the more reactionary interpreations that can be made of this, such as with Don Beck's Spiral Dynamics or Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology (nevertheless, Wilber's overview is interesting reading) But essentially what these approaches do is to recognize that humans generally move through quite recognizable changes that have corresponding value systems, and that social/cultural systems are dominated by people congregating about a particular model, dominant at the time. I still like Up from Eden from Wilber to explain this process. The problem, i.e. the reactionary danger, is that once you recognize that humans have different types of complexities, it's easy to become elitist. On the other hand, the equipotential approach I would advocate, recognizes that we have many different lines of development, and that we can have a social system which allows people to connect their 'best aspects', in collective endeavours where they are the most useful. With this approach, hierarchising individuals becomes superfluous. I recently discovered the Human Givens approach of Joe Griffen and MIndsfield college, http://vimeo.com/754995. I see this as the first clear recognition of the relational embeddedness of the human, in a social,ecological and socio-political framework. You may want to check the material collated via http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Relational and http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Spirituality I personally like the work of John Heron and Jorge Ferrer, i.e. the participatory turn, most. Sorry that no single source comes up with that very important question. I wish I had a clearer vision on who has contributed to such a new vision of the human, Contributions by readers much welcome. On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:15 AM, robin <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Michel,
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
could you describe in a little more detail, that 'scholar' and what he should be thinking ?
Ah, I found what I was looking for. I was referring to this blog post of yours:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/does-human-nature-need-to-change-for-a-p2p-tra...
I am wondering who within (political) philosophy said similar things, about "human nature" that transforms along with changes in our ethical believes and social practices.
I don't think I ever read anything about that and would like to research more.
Thanks!
Robin.
p.s. The comment on that blog-post is a nice example of a non-free ideology: "Naturism is the only (!) way for man (!) to become one with the world". Instead of: could be a way for people/ humanity/ to feel (more) in peace.
And also: "they will enable mankind to one day live as pure and unaltered as Mother Nature intended" Who is this person to decide if I am as pure + unaltered as nature wants?
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
On Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:18:39 am Michel Bauwens wrote:
I recently discovered the Human Givens approach of Joe Griffen and MIndsfield college, http://vimeo.com/754995. I see this as the first clear recognition of the relational embeddedness of the human, in a social,ecological and socio-political framework.
This sounds similar to Alfred Korzybski's general semantics, in which structural relationships are a central theme. Korzybski's book 'Science and Sanity' is on the Zeitgeist recommended reading list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm -Karl
unfortunately never got to study the general semantics approach On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Karl Robillard <[email protected]>wrote:
On Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:18:39 am Michel Bauwens wrote:
I recently discovered the Human Givens approach of Joe Griffen and MIndsfield college, http://vimeo.com/754995. I see this as the first clear recognition of the relational embeddedness of the human, in a social,ecological and socio-political framework.
This sounds similar to Alfred Korzybski's general semantics, in which structural relationships are a central theme. Korzybski's book 'Science and Sanity' is on the Zeitgeist recommended reading list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm
-Karl
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
participants (4)
-
Douglas Rushkoff -
Karl Robillard -
Michel Bauwens -
robin