Poll: Zeitgeist Movement

[dvd_72]

Don't we want to reduce the limitations on our freedom to think, not make them tighter? A system like this will give people the option of forgoing thought, something I see some people do with thier religions and letting that do thier thinking for them. This will infact limit us further, rather than freeing us to make of the world what we will.

Implementing a system which would prioritize resource distribution amongst humans to satisfy their basic needs in food, water and shelter, whilst erasing irrelevant artificial bounderies and distinctions which contribute to social stratification and the competitive self-perserving division of the human race would put a limit on our freedoms? Is having to work to provide onesself with means for survival freedom? Is being born into a different social status just? Doesn't technological progress aim to free humans from labour? Or are we to believe that humans would not find motivation to do anything within a system that provides them with these things?

And what would motivate us to improve? to strive for more? You have to take human nature into account. We are, overall, competative beings. it's the way of the world.

By taking away not only the need, but the ability to progress to a point above your peers would be debilitating to our pshyche. we would become apathetic, having no dreams or desires to strive for because everything is provided.

This notion that everyone is equal is a naive ideology. some are stronger, some are faster, some stronger, some healthy and some weak. Calling these divisions "artificial" is blinding yourself to the way of the world.

I'm not saying the world is perfect as it is. Those born in a lower social 'class' tend to find it extremely difficult to rise up beyond that, even with incredible talent. But tell me, is it fair to have those who work hard, who strive with all thier might for thier dreams to be equal to those who are content with the basics of life, to just go through a routine day by day? Should these motivated, brilliant people be held to the same level as those who are content with a simple, unnasuming life that takes little to no effort?

In the end, it is the struggles we go through, the struggle to survive, the struggle to surpass those around you, that makes us who we are. Taking these away would be taking away a large part of what we need to grow and develop as a human being, where we learn who we are and what kind of person we are. In my eyes, taking those opportunities away would contribute to a culture where nothing progresses and everything stagnates.

No, competiteveness is not human nature. There is no "human nature" within the societal identification of a human being - we are formed by external stimulus. If you think that without the need to compete to sustain biological survival humanity will find no motivation to "move on" - you are reserved to defining "motivation" only in the currently relatable sense. New incentives are bound to appear, as the identity is relieved from conflict with the relatable elements of the environment, and hence its perception of itself within the environment. It is the paradigm of competition that slows the true "progress", that is the instillment of a harmoneous perception of universal existence. The identity becomes more stubborned to external stimulis, any natural incentive to explore the environment (curiousity) is hindered.

Ah, the old nature versus nurture argument. You're saying that we are born as nothing, and only our environment shapes who we will become. This is something I disagree with. We have a nature of our own, defined by the biological nature of the species, and the nature of each individual. After birth our environment does shape us, but only in ways that are filtered through our innate born nature.

Our desire to compete for superiority is a fact of not just our nature, but all life. The stronger the being, the more likely his or her genetic code will be passed on. That has been the driving force of evolution since the dawn of life on earth. The strong reproduce while the weak fade into history. We may have largly moved past survival of the fittest, but it remains a part of who we are. It's one of the primal things that make us human.

I don't see how you can say that competition hinders the natural incentive to explore the environment. It encourages us to find new and better ways than our competition to do some chosen action or process.

Ford using the factory line model to produce more cars cheaper than his competition.

The development of faster and smaller computer parts.

Sportsmen pushing the limits of what the human body can accomplish.

All these things are primarily motivated by competition. The need to be better. The desire to surpass your peers. Without these drives why would people need to push limits?

 

[NotR]

Don't we want to reduce the limitations on our freedom to think, not make them tighter? A system like this will give people the option of forgoing thought, something I see some people do with thier religions and letting that do thier thinking for them. This will infact limit us further, rather than freeing us to make of the world what we will.

Implementing a system which would prioritize resource distribution amongst humans to satisfy their basic needs in food, water and shelter, whilst erasing irrelevant artificial bounderies and distinctions which contribute to social stratification and the competitive self-perserving division of the human race would put a limit on our freedoms? Is having to work to provide onesself with means for survival freedom? Is being born into a different social status just? Doesn't technological progress aim to free humans from labour? Or are we to believe that humans would not find motivation to do anything within a system that provides them with these things?

And what would motivate us to improve? to strive for more? You have to take human nature into account. We are, overall, competative beings. it's the way of the world.

By taking away not only the need, but the ability to progress to a point above your peers would be debilitating to our pshyche. we would become apathetic, having no dreams or desires to strive for because everything is provided.

This notion that everyone is equal is a naive ideology. some are stronger, some are faster, some stronger, some healthy and some weak. Calling these divisions "artificial" is blinding yourself to the way of the world.

I'm not saying the world is perfect as it is. Those born in a lower social 'class' tend to find it extremely difficult to rise up beyond that, even with incredible talent. But tell me, is it fair to have those who work hard, who strive with all thier might for thier dreams to be equal to those who are content with the basics of life, to just go through a routine day by day? Should these motivated, brilliant people be held to the same level as those who are content with a simple, unnasuming life that takes little to no effort?

In the end, it is the struggles we go through, the struggle to survive, the struggle to surpass those around you, that makes us who we are. Taking these away would be taking away a large part of what we need to grow and develop as a human being, where we learn who we are and what kind of person we are. In my eyes, taking those opportunities away would contribute to a culture where nothing progresses and everything stagnates.

No, competiteveness is not human nature. There is no "human nature" within the societal identification of a human being - we are formed by external stimulus. If you think that without the need to compete to sustain biological survival humanity will find no motivation to "move on" - you are reserved to defining "motivation" only in the currently relatable sense. New incentives are bound to appear, as the identity is relieved from conflict with the relatable elements of the environment, and hence its perception of itself within the environment. It is the paradigm of competition that slows the true "progress", that is the instillment of a harmoneous perception of universal existence. The identity becomes more stubborned to external stimulis, any natural incentive to explore the environment (curiousity) is hindered.

Ah, the old nature versus nurture argument. You're saying that we are born as nothing, and only our environment shapes who we will become. This is something I disagree with. We have a nature of our own, defined by the biological nature of the species, and the nature of each individual. After birth our environment does shape us, but only in ways that are filtered through our innate born nature.

Our desire to compete for superiority is a fact of not just our nature, but all life. The stronger the being, the more likely his or her genetic code will be passed on. That has been the driving force of evolution since the dawn of life on earth. The strong reproduce while the weak fade into history. We may have largly moved past survival of the fittest, but it remains a part of who we are. It's one of the primal things that make us human.

I don't see how you can say that competition hinders the natural incentive to explore the environment. It encourages us to find new and better ways than our competition to do some chosen action or process.

Ford using the factory line model to produce more cars cheaper than his competition.

The development of faster and smaller computer parts.

Sportsmen pushing the limits of what the human body can accomplish.

All these things are primarily motivated by competition. The need to be better. The desire to surpass your peers. Without these drives why would people need to push limits?

I can only point to what I've been writting before. Societal distinction is not within the genome. Ford producing more efficient cars and sportsmen pushing limits is not the progress I was speaking of. True progress is the instillment of a harmoneous perception of universal existence. A recognition of the single entity that is "existence", the unity of "reality" - humans do not need to be bound by any involantary instillment of who they are and what needs they must satisfy under any enstated structure, but realise that they are free to alter their perception. It is what some call "enlightenment". Progress is not in conflict, but in he realisation of the illusive nature therof and hence the awareness of the choice between conflict and harmony.

 

[dvd_72]

I can only point to what I've been writting before. Societal distinction is not within the genome. Ford producing more efficient cars and sportsmen pushing limits is not the progress I was speaking of. True progress is the instillment of a harmoneous perception of universal existence. A recognition of the single entity that is "existence", the unity of "reality" - humans do not need to be bound by any involantary instillment of who they are and what needs they must satisfy under any enstated structure, but realise that they are free to alter their perception. It is what some call "enlightenment". Progress is not in conflict, but in he realisation of the illusive nature therof and hence the awareness of the choice between conflict and harmony.

It seems we have two different views of progress but I will also say that what you just said makes absolutely no sense to me, as in I do not understand it. Are you saying progress is an end goal? that progress is the point where you can .... what exactly?

If what I do understand is true, then I must disagree with your definition of progress. Progress is not the end or the goal, but the path we take to reach it. Progress is growth, in the individual, in society, and in our technological ability. Not some illusive, vaguely defined harmony.

I also don't understand this "humans do not need to be bound by any involantary instillment of who they are and what needs they must satisfy under any enstated structure, but realise that they are free to alter thier perception". I mean, who we are is defined by our thoughts and actions. Our needs are our own, and unique to ourselvs. There may be broad stroaks of similarities but in the details is where we differ.

Also, if the logistics of our lives are dictated by a machine, then how are we free to alter our perception? The only perception we get is the one given to us by the unified environment provided to us by this Movement. We already are free to alter our perception because there are so many different ways of seeing things, and it is through other people who are different at the core, and have grown up in different cultures that allow us to find them. This is because we grow as time goes on, as we meet new people, read books, and expirience the world around us. I see this as an attempt to shape the world so everyone expiriences the same, learns the same, sees the same, and thinks the same.

There is no diversity in that. Diversity will inevitibally lead to conflict, hopefully peacefull and thought out ones like the one we are having now, but sometimes violent ones. But without this diversity, without the conflict it brings, we would be living a sheltered life in which we have little to no chance of growing as individuals. as human beings.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

It sounds like a Street Fighter movement from the title.

Judging by other people's posts, it has something to do with machines running everything? That sounds good on the surface--never having to work again, never having to worry about accidents--but anyone who's seen Terminator, I Robot, countless other movies, and/or heard the song, "In the Year 2525," knows that this is a bad idea.

 

[NotR]

I can only point to what I've been writting before. Societal distinction is not within the genome. Ford producing more efficient cars and sportsmen pushing limits is not the progress I was speaking of. True progress is the instillment of a harmoneous perception of universal existence. A recognition of the single entity that is "existence", the unity of "reality" - humans do not need to be bound by any involantary instillment of who they are and what needs they must satisfy under any enstated structure, but realise that they are free to alter their perception. It is what some call "enlightenment". Progress is not in conflict, but in he realisation of the illusive nature therof and hence the awareness of the choice between conflict and harmony.

It seems we have two different views of progress but I will also say that what you just said makes absolutely no sense to me, as in I do not understand it. Are you saying progress is an end goal? that progress is the point where you can .... what exactly?

If what I do understand is true, then I must disagree with your definition of progress. Progress is not the end or the goal, but the path we take to reach it. Progress is growth, in the individual, in society, and in our technological ability. Not some illusive, vaguely defined harmony.

I also don't understand this "humans do not need to be bound by any involantary instillment of who they are and what needs they must satisfy under any enstated structure, but realise that they are free to alter thier perception". I mean, who we are is defined by our thoughts and actions. Our needs are our own, and unique to ourselvs. There may be broad stroaks of similarities but in the details is where we differ.

Also, if the logistics of our lives are dictated by a machine, then how are we free to alter our perception? The only perception we get is the one given to us by the unified environment provided to us by this Movement. We already are free to alter our perception because there are so many different ways of seeing things, and it is through other people who are different at the core, and have grown up in different cultures that allow us to find them. This is because we grow as time goes on, as we meet new people, read books, and expirience the world around us. I see this as an attempt to shape the world so everyone expiriences the same, learns the same, sees the same, and thinks the same.

There is no diversity in that. Diversity will inevitibally lead to conflict, hopefully peacefull and thought out ones like the one we are having now, but sometimes violent ones. But without this diversity, without the conflict it brings, we would be living a sheltered life in which we have little to no chance of growing as individuals. as human beings.

If progress is the path to solving conflict (whence you have a goal, you have a need, whence you have a need, your are in conflict with the environment), then is the realisation that there is no conflict = progress? If yes, then the perception of reality without conflict is the perception of the essence of unity of existence. Now, a human. Imagine yourself devoid of all social distinction and functionality. Who and what are you? The answer is - you are that, what makes you an element of the universe (not society). The striving to solve conflicts implemented by the society is progress which loses relevance outside of the social organism, which implemented the conflict in the first place. Hence such progress can be discarted from your awareness of the "self", as being an element of the universe, as said earlier. The striving to solve conflicts implemented by the universe regarding you as an element of existence - progress which loses relevance only outside of existence, which implemented the conflict in the first place. Whether there is a conflict or not - I can tell you that there is no conflict if you percieve yourself as an element of the universal organism. To realise this one must acknowledge that any element reflects the nature of the system which it is a part of, as the very nature of it being an "element" is defined by the distinctive characteristics of that system. More specifically - humans must realise themselves as elements of the universe, only to realise that they are already in harmony as existence is without conflict. This is done by asking the question I've mentioned before "what am I outside of the social organism and its distinctive properties". Some call it meditation.

I've honestly tried to explain it as best as I can. I do not wish for anyone's freedom to be taken away. The notion of abundance the Zeitgeist films promote is abundance in relation to human need. Scarcity and assortement of products today generates a high demand because it exploits the competitive materialistic nature of the individual within the society. The broad spectrum of products we have today and their supposed scarcity is what drives demand. For example, if there is no assortment of cellphones on the market, everyone has an identical highly functional phone - all of the resources spent on the developement, adv campaigns, financial costs of all market competitors would not go to waste. I see the system we have today as a very circular one, in terms of the logic of its functionality.

 

[dvd_72]

So you're saying we can be who we are without needing conflict? This may be true, but it is through conflict and our responces to it that we learn who we are. the need to know who we are is, in itself, a conflict between ones self and the concious mind.

Immagine an object, any object. It exists in and of itself, that is true, but without some kind of interaction it cannot be known. The very nature of who we are, of what we are, would be invisible to us in a world without conflict of any kind.

Not only that, but conflict changes us. By learning who we are, we change. by acting on our environtment, by responding to the world around us, we change and adapt and become better people, all while learning more of who we are, and who we want to become.

This can be likened to particles on a quantum scale. They can exist, but without interactions that we can observe, they remain unknowable. Also, the very act of knowing, of observing, changes the nature of the quantum object we are observing, just like the self of the human being.

How can one know who he or she is, within or without "the social organism and its distinctive properties" unless there is some way to observe the interactions of the self? without observing the self in action?

As for your cellphone example, if we all had the same average performance phone, what need would there be to make a better one? What we have is good enough, and making them better wont net us any gain. The desire to inovate, to improve upon, is greatly reduced. Instead, the competition between different phone manufacturers creates an environment where money and effort invested translate into not only an improvement in the quality of life, but in more money for those who put the work in. The aparant scarcity of the product is a function of that competition, an unfortuanate and ugly side we call greed. I do believe though that the drive competition gives us to improve is well worth a little bit of self intrest and a little bit of greed. There will allways be those willing to use advancements made due to the force of competition to improve those less fortuanate and while slower than what we might like, the wealth does spread. mostly.

I'm not saying the way the world works is perfect. Far from it. Competition has an ugly side, as I mentioned earlier, but it is up to us, as a species, through growth by expirience, to improve ourselvs and our social structure.

This movement, on the other hand, I see as going too far to the other end of the scale. What we have works, and works quite well, but needs quite a bit of tuening. That tuening should be in our personal ethics, through education and discussions like these, and an understanding that hard work brings prosperity, and a willingness to share lifts up the lives of those around us, making our own lives better. What we do not need is our instinctual drive to push ahead taken away from us, putting us equal to others who are not, in fact, equal to us in every way. We do not need a system that does not reward the individuals hard work, creativity, and effort. Doing so would slow our growth and advancement, encouraging apathy and discouraging personal effort.

In fact, I believe that this is why communism wouldn't work the way our minds are now. We are still too focused on lifting ourselvs above others before helping those others for a system of equality to all to work. That system also ignores the simple fact that some can simply -do- more than others, be it lift more, build better, think better, or be more creative than others. Without rewarding these people they will have little to no reason to strive to reach thier potential because everyone else will have the same anyways.

Now, as fun and engaging as this discussion has been, I need to get some sleep. Good night.

 

[NotR]

SNIP

In my opinion, what you said is partially true, but existence and reality are of singular essense. It is without distinction. You and I are the reality experiencing itself subjectively. There is no conflict outside of that experience. And the realisation of our entity beyond this experience is what elevates a human to an absolute level of awareness and hence freedom.

There exists a certain "gravity" of any distinctory element of the universe towards the inherent unity of existence. It is often refered to as "love". I believe any action in accord with this motion to be "progress", as it reflects the motion towards the true entity of reality.

About competition fueling progress - in relation to what I've said above I do not believe this to be accurate. In relation to the example I made with the cellphone, in which I adressed the unnessesary waste and self-prepetuation of the current system - I think that competition (in the broadest sense applicable to our society) distracts humans from the progress I've mentioned above.

Also going to sleep now. Good night.

 

[thiosk]

I suggest heartily that all supporters of non-currency lifestyles send me all their money.

You don't need it anyhow.

 

[NotR]

I suggest heartily that all supporters of non-currency lifestyles send me all their money.

You don't need it anyhow.

Supporters of a non-currency lifestyle? I struggle to understand who you mean by that.

 

[Manji187]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

Disgusting as in wanting to subject everyone to one way of thinking and surpress individuality and personal freedom. Dangerous as any other misguided ideology, it has power to attract people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.

Heh..you'll have to elaborate a bit.

What makes you think they want to subject everyone to one way of thinking (and what way is that?) and surpress individuality and personal freedom (and how do you define individuality and personal freedom?)?

Misguided how?

Are you satisfied with "the current state of affairs"?

Could you be more specific and substantial instead of obfuscating matters with one-liner like statements?

 

[Nimcha]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

Disgusting as in wanting to subject everyone to one way of thinking and surpress individuality and personal freedom. Dangerous as any other misguided ideology, it has power to attract people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.

Heh..you'll have to elaborate a bit.

What makes you think they want to subject everyone to one way of thinking (and what way is that?) and surpress individuality and personal freedom (and how do you define individuality and personal freedom?)?

Misguided how?

Are you satisfied with "the current state of affairs"?

Could you be more specific and substantial instead of obfuscating matters with one-liner like statements?

Plenty of other people have already explained why. The only way to arrive at this kind of society is to surpress all desires, ambition and innovation. In other words, turning people into mindless automatons. Someone not conforming to this way of thinking has no place in that society.

By misguided I mean being blinded by idealism and refusing to face reality because it's not what they want to see.

As for myself, I'm pretty satisfied. A lot could be different, possibly for the better. Stagnation is never good.

 

[lionsprey]

seen all the movies and then some and i think its a nice idea but sadly not practicly possible

 

[Manji187]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

Disgusting as in wanting to subject everyone to one way of thinking and surpress individuality and personal freedom. Dangerous as any other misguided ideology, it has power to attract people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.

Heh..you'll have to elaborate a bit.

What makes you think they want to subject everyone to one way of thinking (and what way is that?) and surpress individuality and personal freedom (and how do you define individuality and personal freedom?)?

Misguided how?

Are you satisfied with "the current state of affairs"?

Could you be more specific and substantial instead of obfuscating matters with one-liner like statements?

Plenty of other people have already explained why. The only way to arrive at this kind of society is to surpress all desires, ambition and innovation. In other words, turning people into mindless automatons. Someone not conforming to this way of thinking has no place in that society.

By misguided I mean being blinded by idealism and refusing to face reality because it's not what they want to see.

As for myself, I'm pretty satisfied. A lot could be different, possibly for the better. Stagnation is never good.

The only way? That's a rather sweeping statement. There is never just one way to do anything.

Wouldn't you agree that someone who is not conforming to the current paradigm (private property and capital acquisition and accumulation, work, competition, consumption) has no place in THIS society? Every society will most likely have its outcasts/ dissenters...what matters is how it treats them.

"face reality"? What/ who's reality is that? Is it by any chance unalterable as well? If so, how bloody convenient. Conformist rhetoric at its purest.

When was the last time you've seen or heard of a Persian King or a Roman Emperor or a Russian Tsar? Everything passes and nothing lasts. Neither will the current paradigm.

Also, if everyone would just "face reality" we wouldn't be here, in our comfortable homes with our fancy trinkets. Women wouldn't have rights, the African Americans would still be working at plantations and the earth would be flat with the sun spinning around it. Progress is made despite of such "realities". The current paradigm is just another reality meant to be transcended/ outgrown. Preferably without bloodshed...

 

[Nimcha]

Ah, yes. I would say their ideas are disgusting and very dangerous but thankfully nobody takes them seriously so it's not worth the trouble.

Disgusting how? Dangerous how (or to whom)?

Disgusting as in wanting to subject everyone to one way of thinking and surpress individuality and personal freedom. Dangerous as any other misguided ideology, it has power to attract people who are not satisfied with the current state of affairs.

Heh..you'll have to elaborate a bit.

What makes you think they want to subject everyone to one way of thinking (and what way is that?) and surpress individuality and personal freedom (and how do you define individuality and personal freedom?)?

Misguided how?

Are you satisfied with "the current state of affairs"?

Could you be more specific and substantial instead of obfuscating matters with one-liner like statements?

Plenty of other people have already explained why. The only way to arrive at this kind of society is to surpress all desires, ambition and innovation. In other words, turning people into mindless automatons. Someone not conforming to this way of thinking has no place in that society.

By misguided I mean being blinded by idealism and refusing to face reality because it's not what they want to see.

As for myself, I'm pretty satisfied. A lot could be different, possibly for the better. Stagnation is never good.

The only way? That's a rather sweeping statement. There is never just one way to do anything.

Wouldn't you agree that someone who is not conforming to the current paradigm (private property and capital acquisition and accumulation, work, competition, consumption) has no place in THIS society? Every society will most likely have its outcasts/ dissenters...what matters is how it treats them.

"face reality"? What/ who's reality is that? Is it by any chance unalterable as well? If so, how bloody convenient. Conformist rhetoric at its purest.

When was the last time you've seen or heard of a Persian King or a Roman Emperor or a Russian Tsar? Everything passes and nothing lasts. Neither will the current paradigm.

Also, if everyone would just "face reality" we wouldn't be here, in our comfortable homes with our fancy trinkets. Women wouldn't have rights, the African Americans would still be working at plantations and the earth would be flat with the sun spinning around it. Progress is made despite of such "realities". The current paradigm is just another reality meant to be transcended/ outgrown. Preferably without bloodshed...

You know what, I think I was wrong in my first post. Thanks for letting me see that.

Your movement isn't as dangerous as I thought, if your bit of arguing is anything to go by.

 

[Manji187]

You know what, I think I was wrong in my first post. Thanks for letting me see that.

Your movement isn't as dangerous as I thought, if your bit of arguing is anything to go by.

Strange. I thought you'd be more...determined in your convictions (in both senses of the word). Could this be sarcasm....or perhaps simply fatigue?

Ah..no matter.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Where's the "It sounds familar, but have no idea what it is, can some explain." poll option.

 

[TastyCarcass]

I saw the first one because it used Bill Hicks jokes and Tool music.

Pretty much all lies.

 

[GoreTuzk]

@SakSak

Could you point me to reliable sources of that non-BS information that contradicts the BS I pointed to you? I'd love to straighten up my facts.

Great!

You may wish to begin with these:

H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003)

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

Brown, Schuyler. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-826207-8.

Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.

Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, Prentice Hall, ISBN 013013306X.

Friedman, Milton (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, London: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-26403-3.

Snowdon, Brian; , Howard R. Vane (2005), Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development And Current State, Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 1-84376-394-X

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1249783 "Social marketing: an approach to planned social change"

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1252108 "Marketing in the network economy"

Landsburg, Steven. Price Theory and Applications. South-Western College Pub.

I'm not interested in books about books about opinions about claims (about religion). And copying the reference list in Wikipedia's "macroeconomics" page won't do the trick, I still wonder what are the facts that contradict the facts I presented to you?

Of course, the best way is to go study the topic in question in university.

Oh, you're one of those... The same universities that have educated humanity so far, right?

I'd love to see you defend capitalism if you were born in a third world country. The fact is, it's a game of musical chairs [http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=5&id=201554&Itemid=100114&lang=en] and it's therefore immoral because it's inherent in the system that at the end of the round there's always some who get fucked. Can you tell me that's BS?

You have suffered indoctrination that led you to firmly believe that money is something completely natural and that social cohesion depends on it, but at the same time you recognize that inequality and injustice is a problem of the interaction of social and biological influences. Since the biology is something we're stuck with, TZM supports a new social approach based on the scientific method to try to make the best of that interaction with the goals of abundance, efficiency and sustainability with a transparent and nature-based system in which everyone is free to participate and give their opinion if it's backed up by logic.

Just having an open mind lets an awful lot of garbage in.
An open, critically thinking mind, however does not.
A closed mind lets inside nothing.
Sadly, the middle is often mistaken by the first as the last.

I also find amusing to see you express that you are convinced that (unlike anyone that differs from your beliefs) you stand in balance between an excessively open mind and a hard-headed skeptic, when that is how every single person in the world feels. So it's obvious that you have that opinion about your belief system, every ego must produce rationalizations to ensure it has intellectual ground to stand upon, don't hold your own in such high consideration is my advice. Entertain the possibility that you're not the holder of truth, for a moment.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

@SakSak

Could you point me to reliable sources of that non-BS information that contradicts the BS I pointed to you? I'd love to straighten up my facts.

Great!

You may wish to begin with these:

H. J. De Jonge, "The New Testament Canon," in The Biblical Canons. eds. de Jonge & J. M. Auwers (Leuven University Press, 2003)

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/03/loose-canons-development-of-old.html

Brown, Schuyler. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-826207-8.

Taylor, Joan E. Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins. Oxford University Press (1993). ISBN 0-19-814785-6.

Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, Prentice Hall, ISBN 013013306X.

Friedman, Milton (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, London: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-26403-3.

Snowdon, Brian; , Howard R. Vane (2005), Modern Macroeconomics: Its Origins, Development And Current State, Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 1-84376-394-X

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1249783 "Social marketing: an approach to planned social change"

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1252108 "Marketing in the network economy"

Landsburg, Steven. Price Theory and Applications. South-Western College Pub.

I'm not interested in books about books about opinions about claims (about religion). And copying the reference list in Wikipedia's "macroeconomics" page won't do the trick, I still wonder what are the facts that contradict the facts I presented to you?

Of course, the best way is to go study the topic in question in university.

Oh, you're one of those... The same universities that have educated humanity so far, right?

I'd love to see you defend capitalism if you were born in a third world country. The fact is, it's a game of musical chairs [http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=5&id=201554&Itemid=100114&lang=en] and it's therefore immoral because it's inherent in the system that at the end of the round there's always some who get fucked. Can you tell me that's BS?

You have suffered indoctrination that led you to firmly believe that money is something completely natural and that social cohesion depends on it, but at the same time you recognize that inequality and injustice is a problem of the interaction of social and biological influences. Since the biology is something we're stuck with, TZM supports a new social approach based on the scientific method to try to make the best of that interaction with the goals of abundance, efficiency and sustainability with a transparent and nature-based system in which everyone is free to participate and give their opinion if it's backed up by logic.

Just having an open mind lets an awful lot of garbage in.
An open, critically thinking mind, however does not.
A closed mind lets inside nothing.
Sadly, the middle is often mistaken by the first as the last.

I also find amusing to see you express that you are convinced that (unlike anyone that differs from your beliefs) you stand in balance between an excessively open mind and a hard-headed skeptic, when that is how every single person in the world feels. So it's obvious that you have that opinion about your belief system, every ego must produce rationalizations to ensure it has intellectual ground to stand upon, don't hold your own in such high consideration is my advice. Entertain the possibility that you're not the holder of truth, for a moment.

So let me get this straight: you guys are anti-college establishment, but you're pro-scientific method? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Zacharine]

I'm not interested in books about books about opinions about claims (about religion).

Okay, so you are uninterested in religious history.

And copying the reference list in Wikipedia's "macroeconomics" page won't do the trick

Funnily enough, several of the books there happen to be my course-books/supplemental reading to them. Guess they do have good sources every now and again?

Also, quick check, I do not think those Kottler articles are referenced in the wiki?

But apparently, you are unwilling to do any study on the issue - after all, you already appear to know the Truth and anyone claiming otherwise is just pawns of the current establishments/Megacorporations/close-minded sheep.

At least, that is what often is being said with those words.

I still wonder what are the facts that contradict the facts I presented to you?

Read the books, and you'll find out. I'm not here to teach you 50 ECTS worth of introductory economics or psychology 101.

Of course, the best way is to go study the topic in question in university.

Oh, you're one of those... The same universities that have educated humanity so far, right?

Actually yes, and quite succesfully at that. You've never been to the university if you think they're all about teaching people facts, without teaching them how to find, establish, overturn and use those facts. Those same universities that have for centuries pushed back the boundaries of knowledge. The same universities that have lead to all kinds of wonderful inventions.

Oh, but those inventions were made by individuals, not the establishments, right? It's not like the community, the equipment in the labs, the reference libraries and the assistants had anything to do with those advancements. So you can still keep saying 'Technology good, establishments bad'.

Sorry, my mistake.

I'd love to see you defend capitalism if you were born in a third world country.

I happen to have an extreme prejudice against pure capitalism, thank you very much. Many in fact label me as a socialist as far as financial matters are concerned. In fact, I also think that ethical responsibility is just as important for a succesfull company as profit marigin is.

Can you tell me that's BS?

Yes. See, that would be the case in pure capitalism with zero oversight. Which is why I am glad no country is purely capitalistic and every country has some oversight.

There's this thing called specialization. Let us say that A can manufacture 2 hunting arrows or 15 clay tiles in an hour. B can manufacture 5 hunting arrows or 6 clay tiles in an hour.

In order to create 10 arrows, A would have to use 5 hours worth of work, whereas 2 hours is sufficient for B. Likewise, for B to manufacture thirty clay tiles, it would take 5 hours of work, whereas A can do that in two hours.

Let us say A and B agree to trade. A produces tiles, B hunting arrows.

So A works for two hours, and produces 30 tiles. B produces 10 arrows. A then trades 10 tiles for 3 arrows.

A is left with 20 tiles and 3 arrows, B with 10 tiles and 7 arrows. For two hours of work. Both are left with more wealth than they would have if they didn't trade - they make profit AND save time.

Let us however say that it takes once a week an hour for them to actually do the trade. But they do not like to travel. C however, does like travelling. He has a cart, that is usually half-empty. He is willing to ferry the goods once a week, for the price of 10 tiles and 3 arrows.

A and B are left with more wealth than either would have without trading, receive the convenience of not having to travel (they do not like it) and C, by doing a minor task on a route he already travels, also makes profit.

All three parties are happy.

That is one of the major principles of economics simplified and explained via an anecdote.

How is that BS?

You have suffered indoctrination that led you to firmly believe that money is something completely natural and that social cohesion depends on it

Whoa, whoa, whoa, back off a bit. When have I said anything about social cohesion being tied to the monetary system?

Money is an invaluable tool for measuring the relative worth of completely different items, and an excellent tool to make trading much, much simpler. That is it.

How the heck does anyone tie Social Cohesion into that? Oh, sorry, forgot again. Zeitgeist. Money = root of evil, no money = everything from social to engineering to medicinal problems are mystically solved.

but at the same time you recognize that inequality and injustice is a problem of the interaction of social and biological influences.

Exactly. Social and biological and cultural influences. Not financial. How is that distinction so hard to make?

TZM supports a new social approach based on the scientific method

Curiously enough, science is descriptive only. It can only say what factually is. never what morally/ethically ought to be. Science can help us understand social and cultural phenomena, but it can offer no solutions because first we have to decide what actually is the solution. Read upon Hume's Guillotine sometime.

to try to make the best of that interaction with the goals of abundance, efficiency and sustainability

Interesting, I've heard those lines spouted by politicians from the left, right and center. Yet no-one seems to be able to say how it's supposed to realistically happen.

with a transparent

All systems are just as transparent as we want them to be.

and nature-based system

As before, Hume's Guillotine. The fact that a praying mantis female eats the male after copulation is not endorsement of cannibalism. The state of nature simple is. What ought to be cannot be derived from what is alone. Sometimes, the state of nature requires changing - such as when your hand is broken and you want it healed.

in which everyone is free to participate and give their opinion if it's backed up by logic.

Funnily enough, last time I checked that also pretty much applies currently.

I also find amusing to see you express that you are convinced that (unlike anyone that differs from your beliefs) you stand in balance between an excessively open mind and a hard-headed skeptic, when that is how every single person in the world feels. So it's obvious that you have that opinion about your belief system, every ego must produce rationalizations to ensure it has intellectual ground to stand upon, don't hold your own in such high consideration is my advice. Entertain the possibility that you're not the holder of truth, for a moment.

The Irony. It Burns.