The link of new movie to education may not be immediately apparent but is covered at 1hr 34min. Part 2 and 3 worth the wait. Currently the page is being considered for deletion from wikipedia?
I am seriously reconsidering everything I do and think after this. I must keep love in mind, heart and hand while I fend off the overwhelming fear that much of this movie brings to me..
> The link of new movie to education may not be immediately apparent but > is covered at 1hr 34min. Part 2 and 3 worth the wait. Currently the > page is being considered for deletion from wikipedia?
i haven't watched it yet, but if you want to make a 2nd cup of coffee and settle in for a story which will continue to cause discomfort about the dominant paradigm, check out william rodriguez' eye witness account of 911 on google video (he was a WTC janitor for 20 years, rescued people, was lauded by Bush and co, etc.... except whoops he hasn't shut up about what he heard, saw, smelt, etc. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294
i've watched/reach a fair bit of 911 conspiracy stuff (http://del.icio.us/jtneill/911) and at the very least it seems to me that an honest, thinking citizen has to be concerned about the C-grade spy thriller that is the official 911 report http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911
unlearning is perhaps the most important educational objective of our time
So, there clearly is an evil conspiracy at the top. At best, they know something that we don't, and it is forcing them to do terrible things. Maybe that something is peak oil..? at worst, they are greedy imperialists. But in all these movies I have seen so far - there is the claim that it is a secret. It doesn't appear to be a secret! The consolidated evidence and agit' prop is EVERYWHERE! I am worried that this agitational propaganda is simply part of the conspiracy.. a conspiracy within a conspiracy if you will! Because it leaves me feeling even more terrified than the unrealistic terrorism they talk to us about - the suicide bombers in Sydney etc. The real terrorists are amongst us, it could be you, it could be me, it could be Google, it could be Blogger... devide and conquer - I'm so terrorised, that I think I'm gunna shoot my neighbours family just because.. and everything is going to go to shit, so the army can come in and make it right - whether we like it or not...
On 7/14/07, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:
> i haven't watched it yet, but if you want to make a 2nd cup of coffee > and settle in for a story which will continue to cause discomfort about > the dominant paradigm, check out william rodriguez' eye witness account > of 911 on google video (he was a WTC janitor for 20 years, rescued > people, was lauded by Bush and co, etc.... except whoops he hasn't shut > up about what he heard, saw, smelt, etc. > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294
> i've watched/reach a fair bit of 911 conspiracy stuff > (http://del.icio.us/jtneill/911) and at the very least it seems to me > that an honest, thinking citizen has to be concerned about the C-grade > spy thriller that is the official 911 report > http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911
> unlearning is perhaps the most important educational objective of our time
On 7/14/07, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:
> unlearning is perhaps the most important educational objective of our time
or learning to govern in a free, participative, humane, ecological way at the current scale. I think that is what is very apparently broken. I think our current systems are unable to make good or safe decisions at the scale or abstraction level that they use to enable global decision making.
I do not know whether distributed communities are going to be better able to discuss, decide and implement better outcomes for communities and for our planet's ecology. But for all our sakes I hope we give it a good try.
the movie - zeitgiest, is full of subtle and not so subtle hints on what we should do... love is the most pressed one. in a quote of poor old Jimi Hendrix, we need the power of love to defeat the love of power.. for a long time (all my life really) I don't think I understood that. It it didn't help that Hendrix, Lennon et all were simply turned into marketing vehicles to me and my generation. So the truth in love escaped me.. how can distributed communities seed and nurture love so that it manifests in each individuals local community? As it is now, the Internet is notorious for dragging us away from our local communities, and interrupting our feeble attempts at nurturing a connectedness on a local scale... the information, the channels, the things I see online are so customised to me as an individual, and only relatable with my online communities (TALO) that I struggle to find anything in common with the people I work with, the people Iive next door to, the people in the town I live... how can the experiences that we share as a distributed community become a shared experience with those around us? Or the other way around?
On 7/14/07, Janet Hawtin <lucych...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/14/07, James Neill <li...@wilderdom.com> wrote:
> > unlearning is perhaps the most important educational objective of our > time
> or learning to govern in a free, participative, humane, ecological way > at the current scale. I think that is what is very apparently broken. > I think our current systems are unable to make good or safe decisions > at the scale or abstraction level that they use to enable global > decision making.
> I do not know whether distributed communities are going to be better > able to discuss, decide and implement better outcomes for communities > and for our planet's ecology. But for all our sakes I hope we give it > a good try.
On 7/14/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I can't work out is:
> So, there clearly is an evil conspiracy at the top.
Swap that for a model of governance that abstracts the ecology and humanity out of the equations used to govern. Math is abstractable, and the diffuse interests of people and ecology are abstracted out as noise because they do not quantify well. Profits quantify well. People with cash are effective at representing their own interests. This is good business sense. It has costs which are not represented in the models used to govern.
> At best, they know something that we don't, and it is forcing them to do terrible things. Maybe that something is peak oil..? at worst, they are greedy imperialists.
People acting in their own best interests.
> But in all these movies I have seen so far - there is the claim that it is a > secret. It doesn't appear to be a secret! The consolidated evidence and > agit' prop is EVERYWHERE!
Fear, anger, and division keep us all close to the systems we look to for protection. A lot of our freedom to discuss and share and participate is criticised/opposed as a challenge to our safety. Our ISPs need to track and control our traffic. Our conversations need to be tracked. We need DRM to save us from piracy. Companies need to track our movements on our desktops. It does not need to be evil people to generate a bad system. It can easily be people who encourage models which suit their own interests, and for whom people are abstracted data and implications IRL are someone else's problem.
A distributed community needs freedom to work. It also poses the challenges that there will be a lot of noise and finding the signal will be a challenge. Finding what is important and what is of systemic value and what is of local or transient value. How do we govern with more local data points and personal perspectives?
> I am worried that this agitational propaganda is simply part of the > conspiracy.. a conspiracy within a conspiracy if you will! Because it leaves > me feeling even more terrified than the unrealistic terrorism they talk to > us about - the suicide bombers in Sydney etc.
Probably possibly who knows. I would say that all of our ideas and perspectives are a jumble of what we think and what we hear or see or read. We have a good understanding about how it feels to be ourselves but have abdicated our understanding of the impact of our collective actions on others to our governments. Our governments have in turn looked to economic and political models which are a good fit for the lobby groups which fund or advise them. Systemically we are without ecological and social conscience.
For me the evident horrors are sufficiently explicit. Our nations admit to deconstructing other nations for oil. This is destruction of communities for profit. If the 9/11 thing is true the nationality of the people hurt is different but the abuse of humanity is the same. I dont need the 9/11 issue to be friendly fire to be appalled at what our governments are doing. (I would however be further appalled and consider democracy completely undone if a government could be so disconnected from its own people.) It would mean that the damage of that kind of thinking is hitting at home, but it does not mean that the thinking is different. I do think we are 'at risk' from the thinking of our governments because in some kind of fundamental way I feel 'they know not what they do' and they are doing it on a global scale. In extension this maps to 'we know not what we do'. I don't have any answers but I do feel that getting some tangible ecological and humane principles into our political and economic systems is important. It is hard to have faith that the current systems would not warp things but we do need to re-engage with politics and be more responsible for who and how we are.
> The real terrorists are > amongst us, it could be you, it could be me, it could be Google, it could be > Blogger... divide and conquer - I'm so terrorised, that I think I'm gunna > shoot my neighbours family just because.. and everything is going to go to > shit, so the army can come in and make it right - whether we like it or > not...
The real terrorists are us because we are particpating in economies which are built on logics which are destructive. It is you, it is me, it is likely to be hard for google to avoid being a part of it because they are an aggregation of data that would be very attractive, blogger is a part of that aggregation. The problem is more that we accept the systems and economies which we are a part of and find it collectively and individually too hard to tell our global self 'don't be evil'. At least one person in Google has had that thought and understands that risk. what about all the other systems we interact with?
Is it possible for distributed communities to do better? Are we able to be more just as a distributed community. Do we care sufficiently for our neighbours to act in their best interests when that might not be in our own best interests? Check out the Confessions of an Economic Hitman, Information Feudalism, and watch Lessig over the next few years as he shifts gears from IP to corruption. We generally do not use armies. But we are still systemically destructive.
Leigh: how can distributed communities seed and nurture love so that it manifests in each individuals local community? As it is now, the Internet is notorious for dragging us away from our local communities, and interrupting our feeble attempts at nurturing a connectedness on a local scale... the information, the channels, the things I see online are so customised to me as an individual, and only relatable with my online communities (TALO) that I struggle to find anything in common with the people I work with, the people Iive next door to, the people in the town I live... how can the experiences that we share as a distributed community become a shared experience with those around us? Or the other way around?
Yes Leigh this is the big question for me. Can we, if free, distributed, local, connected, do better for people globablly, and for the ecology globally, which we must represent as if it was our neighbour. It does not have a node or a voice. I dont know what this means for government or education or economics, It may still need ways to aggregate in order to find signal from noise, but we do need to be careful of our freedoms and our ability to hear other people and perspectives. To examine how these concerns and ideas are aggregated so that our voices as systems are gentle and just. We need to tell our selfish gene that it needs a longer term view.
I want to be messy, free, quirky, exploratory, compassionate, comfortable, loving, creative, safe, happy, and want that for other people. I want that kind of scope for ecology too but I can't express that as well. Biodiversity and quality of life, heritage seeds, organics and a respect for an interwoven biological habitat as an international treasure and system we need to rebuild.
For me the terror in our world is facing self as system. My hope is that we can evolve a new self and sustainable ecological and humane system which I can be a member of even while I am probably flawed and clumsy but trying hard to be a constructive entity within a whole.
/me leaves you all in peace for the weekend and apologises for yet another wander into off topic =).
conspiracy theory as a world view is not convincing IMHO but it would require a lot of hard analytical work to go through and systematically counter the various dramatic viewpoints expressed in the movie - it's easier to make a dramatic claim than to refute one
I'd like to disassociate myself from the opinion that this movie is a credible interpretation of history in a general sense, even though some of the positions it takes may be credible in isolation
history in general cannot be explained by conspiracy theory
> The link of new movie to education may not be immediately apparent but > is covered at 1hr 34min. Part 2 and 3 worth the wait. Currently the > page is being considered for deletion from wikipedia?
Bill, I am spending some time following the links and so on. I'm not going to disassociate myself or actively seek to "systematically counter the various dramatic viewpoints", I am having a look though, one thing that Sparker and I are looking at is why Wikipedia deleted the entry for the movie.. totally unrelated, but learning motivated by the movie. All the movie attempts to do is motivate us to ask questions - good questions too? What is religion? what are its origins? What happened in 9/11? What is the reserve bank's function? what is currency and legal tender? How much can we rely on mega media? and so on. These are classic Teaching as a subversive activity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman>, or inquiry education<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry_education>questions.. what is it you are disassociating from again? facts or questions?
I dunno why in the same breath you say:
- I haven't watched it all - I'm not gunna check the facts - but I declare a disassociation from these facts
Surely you can be more constructive? I think it is a very useful tool for stimulating inquiry education actually. Right up there with the classics..
is there a god? who shot JFK? did humans land on the moon - or if they did, did they really broadcast it live? what started WW1? what caused Pearl Harbour?
'Zeitgeist' was an interesting watch from a Bible College perspective (my context)...! I'm not really interested in sharing my thoughts on it, suffice to say that most of us will indeed believe what we want to. Just as I've had the patience to watch it, I suggest that many of its proponents would do well to patiently seek out what Christianity really has at its core.
Sorry guys, not much to do with TALO here... and not much to do with evangelical Christianity either ;o)
Perhaps part of the value of Web 2.0 is that enables discussion such as this - which is the only TALO-related comment I can think of!
Mark.
--------------------------- Mark Nichols E-Learning Specialist Bible College of New Zealand Private Bag 93104, Waitakere 0650 (+64) 9 837 9752 027 6424145 http://ebcnzer.blogspot.com
leigh wrote: > All the movie attempts to do is motivate us to ask questions - good
questions too
that is far from the truth, the movie puts a position, that 9/11, Pearl Harbour and lots more are conspiracies, that the ruling class or US Imperialism has the capacity to successfully carry out such conspiracies
my position is that US imperialism cannot do this, for example, if they could orchestrate 9/11 then why can't they orchestrate something much simpler, the discovery of WMDs in Iraq? (I guess that's all part of the conspiracy, eh)
but more than that I think there are other ways of analysing events that to me make much more sense
I would like to look into it more deeply but given we have limited time on this earth I prefer to spend my time on issues that I feel are more productive - but what you say in this respect is fair comment - I can't reasonably expect you to abandon such notions with systematic refutation, but I don't have the time at present to provide such refutations - as I said it is far easier to say something dramatic than to refute such statements
I did some googling to find a decent critique but couldn't find one
leigh, your position in this post is more measured and reasonably than in your earlier posts
- Bill
On 7/16/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill, I am spending some time following the links and so on. I'm not going > to disassociate myself or actively seek to "systematically counter the > various dramatic viewpoints", I am having a look though, one thing that > Sparker and I are looking at is why Wikipedia deleted the entry for the > movie.. totally unrelated, but learning motivated by the movie. All the > movie attempts to do is motivate us to ask questions - good questions too? > What is religion? what are its origins? What happened in 9/11? What is the > reserve bank's function? what is currency and legal tender? How much can we > rely on mega media? and so on. These are classic Teaching as a subversive > activity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman>, or inquiry education<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry_education>questions.. what is it you are disassociating from again? facts or > questions?
> I dunno why in the same breath you say:
> - I haven't watched it all > - I'm not gunna check the facts > - but I declare a disassociation from these facts
> Surely you can be more constructive? I think it is a very useful tool for > stimulating inquiry education actually. Right up there with the classics..
> is there a god? > who shot JFK? > did humans land on the moon - or if they did, did they really broadcast it > live? > what started WW1? > what caused Pearl Harbour?
> etc
> On 7/16/07, peter allen <pgp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > to quote the Author of the book "Spycatcher" : -
> > "If you have to choose between conspiracy and f*ck-up, its f*ck-up every > > time."
We could model inquirey learning through wikis.. so Bill, you have the time for a few emails - maybe just two links that expand on your position, then Mark a few more that expand on his important perspectives, Steve and I about Wikipedia deletion
We could start a wiki that investigates the claims one by one, through a wiki.. we could even let it go in many directions..
> 'Zeitgeist' was an interesting watch from a Bible College perspective > (my context)...! I'm not really interested in sharing my thoughts on > it, suffice to say that most of us will indeed believe what we want > to. Just as I've had the patience to watch it, I suggest that many of > its proponents would do well to patiently seek out what Christianity > really has at its core.
> Sorry guys, not much to do with TALO here... and not much to do with > evangelical Christianity either ;o)
> Perhaps part of the value of Web 2.0 is that enables discussion such > as this - which is the only TALO-related comment I can think of!
> Mark.
> --------------------------- > Mark Nichols > E-Learning Specialist > Bible College of New Zealand > Private Bag 93104, Waitakere 0650 > (+64) 9 837 9752 > 027 6424145 > http://ebcnzer.blogspot.com
fear can become paralysing, which results in no action and plays in the hands of those who seek to terrorise. conspiracies are also more attractive than garden variety stupidity or greed.
am particularly struck by this paragraph is his piece:
Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks
> ago The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts > on Comment is Free, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious.. > The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted > 467(2). On the same day I published an article about a genuine, demonstrable > conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms > control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE. It drew > 60 responses(3). The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they > were, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake > conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.
while he's (unnecessarily) withering towards conspiracy theorists, i like his reasoning overall whether or not these doccos are largely true or false.
> leigh wrote: > > All the movie attempts to do is motivate us to ask questions - good > questions too
> that is far from the truth, the movie puts a position, that 9/11, Pearl > Harbour and lots more are conspiracies, that the ruling class or US > Imperialism has the capacity to successfully carry out such conspiracies
> my position is that US imperialism cannot do this, for example, if they > could orchestrate 9/11 then why can't they orchestrate something much > simpler, the discovery of WMDs in Iraq? (I guess that's all part of the > conspiracy, eh)
> but more than that I think there are other ways of analysing events that > to me make much more sense
> I would like to look into it more deeply but given we have limited time on > this earth I prefer to spend my time on issues that I feel are more > productive - but what you say in this respect is fair comment - I can't > reasonably expect you to abandon such notions with systematic refutation, > but I don't have the time at present to provide such refutations - as I said > it is far easier to say something dramatic than to refute such statements
> I did some googling to find a decent critique but couldn't find one
> leigh, your position in this post is more measured and reasonably than in > your earlier posts
agree, disagree, or otherwise, 911 + internet = new breed of "truth-seeking" and political activism
IMHO the best evidence of problems with US govt version of 911 is the evidence produced by the US govt itself - any empirically minded person who reads the official report, i would suggest, would be left with concerns
disinformists wedge conspiracy theories by asking for their evidence - problem is the lack of released and mass of destroyed evidence, so of course little can be proven; but lack of evidence/explanation provokes questions which, left unanswered, evolve into conspiracy theories
i would like for example to see more evidence in order to accept the US govt version of 911, e.g., - proper footage from the 100s of cameras of a plane flying into the pentagon - explanation for why virtually all forensic evidence was immediately shipped away and melted - explanation for the difference b/w plane strike times and seismic spikes, etc. - ... (this is a very long list requesting transparency)...
Umm conspiracy 'theories' and the detail of the content aside - it has many beautiful scenes and edits this Zeitgeist. The opening sequence is one of the better treatments of an otherwise over done collage of war scenes. The long take of the strange, square shape is interesting,,, a hypnotic effect making ready the shock of the war scenes, and then - through the smoke of the last explosion, a beautiful image of Earth, then the universe... there are lots of these little break aways through out, some make me cringe a little - but no more than in just about every film I see these days - so aside from being a pretty stimulating piece for inquiry learning (is there anyone who does that?) it would also be a useful study in editing - especially as so much of the footage that has been sampled is very familiar to us - and agitation propaganda
I'm disappointed with the responses from TALO so far, the belittling and unreferenced remarks around conspiracy theories, and the unwillingness to take the energy and relevance behind this film and turn it into something.. inquiry, film study, wiki, am I really the only person who takes inspiration from this film? Are we really all this desensitized?...
On 7/16/07, minh mcCloy <mizm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> lol & lol
> On 7/16/07, peter allen <pgp...@gmail.com> wrote:
hey, leigh - i'm not belittling you at all - as you know, i'm as glum and disturbed as you are about a whole bunch of stuff that isn't even hidden or contested let alone the dramatic stuff. my reason for posting the monbiot article was that his reasoning helps me get a grip.
whatever the case he makes sense (to me, anyway) and he's a journalist i admire and trust. i also think his point about things happening all around us that are starky disturbing (but unnoticed because they've become so common) is an important one - i really hate that stupid frog metaphor (boiling to death in a pot but not noticing the temperature change) but it seems to be an apt one for how we seem to ignore incremental changes, even if they're corrosive.
in terms of learning, action, etc - i'd be interested in hearing more about the psychology of learning and behaviour - the sorts of things james and others might be able to enlighten us about (such as the tendency for people to prefer to believe what they already believe and preference stuff that supports it etc) and how this plays into how we make decisions about what we do, believe, learn and so on - a whole bunch of human behaviour that can be related to this issue
james? others?
r
On 7/16/07, Leigh Blackall <leighblack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm conspiracy 'theories' and the detail of the content aside - it has > many beautiful scenes and edits this Zeitgeist. The opening sequence is one > of the better treatments of an otherwise over done collage of war scenes. > The long take of the strange, square shape is interesting,,, a hypnotic > effect making ready the shock of the war scenes, and then - through the > smoke of the last explosion, a beautiful image of Earth, then the > universe... there are lots of these little break aways through out, some > make me cringe a little - but no more than in just about every film I see > these days - so aside from being a pretty stimulating piece for inquiry > learning (is there anyone who does that?) it would also be a useful study in > editing - especially as so much of the footage that has been sampled is very > familiar to us - and agitation propaganda
> I'm disappointed with the responses from TALO so far, the belittling and > unreferenced remarks around conspiracy theories, and the unwillingness to > take the energy and relevance behind this film and turn it into something.. > inquiry, film study, wiki, am I really the only person who takes inspiration > from this film? Are we really all this desensitized?...
> On 7/16/07, minh mcCloy <mizm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > lol & lol
> > On 7/16/07, peter allen < pgp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I believe Lenin's grave is a communist plot.
Obviousily two ridulous statements, I would hope that any student I would teach would have the critical thinking capacity to determine this story as muddling trite even if it is from the BBC.
One of my favorite shows is 'Three and a half men' staring that guy Charlie Sheen, a celebrity who like many regular people don't get it about 911. People are asking basic questions, some like Charlie ask well informed intelligent technical questions. Charlie Sheen is a celeb he gets heard he get's exposure...but he's/ we're still non the wiser. Whatever.
For me the salient point of this thread, is the importance of students questioning the authority of their sources, Zeitgeist Movie, BBC, Charlie Sheen, you or me, however unpalatable.
If you're interested in CNN check Bill Oreily's take - 'Sheen won't come back' http://tinyurl.com/2gcmqc
Perhaps intelligent media studies/ sociology/ history students if having listened to both men would see the logic of the star of Scary Movie 4 against CNN's main anchor! Or vice versa (I doubt it)
As a teacher I'd like to be able to reference wikipedia to be able to give students the chance to question and pull apart a recognised piece of engaging media on such an important subject area like Zeitgeist without ridicule.
On the 'free and open' wikipedia the zeitgeist movie page is removed and locked down (After only a few days) - The Zeitgeist movie topic - whether I agree with it or not has no voice in wikipedia, in my mind that sucks for educators, learning, wikipedia you, me, students, knowledge (and the future).
lol lol
Make what you will of it.
On Jul 16, 2:07 pm, "peter allen" <pgp...@gmail.com> wrote:
i think it's fairly well established that TALO is the sort of place where language gets hurled about as often as it is carefully folded into shapes that will inform and enlighten. i'd hate it if we ever lost or successfully punished that sense of abandon or impishness that often presents here.
leigh's comment about fascism was one such time where i think it was obvious he was casting his net wide hoping to ignite some vigourous discussion rather than attempting to alert the world to neilsen's dark side. ditto with alex and his famous rubber bands. if anything, i'm feeling a bit disappointed that it's so long between smackdowns - the lively banter that, through respectful boisterousness finds some kind of depth in conversation and helps all of us see different facets of an issue or thing (or at the very least, entertains).
i don't have strong feelings about this but i do have some questions
what about people who say that the holocaust didn't happen or that there are lizards on the dark side of the moon who are in cahoots with the US govt? what if they had "proof" and were really good storytellers? should it be in wikipedia just cos a bunch of people think it? (mind you, just had a quick random search of the site and found more than a few popular religions so i can already see the flaw in my question...). i'm interested in why they removed the article but not outraged - i sort of don't care cos wikipedia to me is just another website, much as it's a mostly good website. the internet (so far) is the only real place where there's true freedom to publish whatever you want and i think we need to remember that when we support sites that purport to be truly democratic/open. (and anyway, by now there'd be squillions of people who saved the wikipedia page so that particular horse has already bolted and will reappear everywhere - great viral marketing strategy, actually...).
the second thing i wonder is, would you want wikipedia to be "THE" source for all information? or even most information? that, i reckon, would be dangerous, so i'm always sanguine when i hear about kerfuffles in wikipedia cos i reckon the longer this sort of thing happens, the longer we keep remembering that wikipedia is just another site. i would really dread the day where any site becomes so important that we forget that.
and thanks for the warning about badgers - always the furry ones you gotta watch, i reckon
> Obviousily two ridulous statements, I would hope that any student I > would teach would have the critical thinking capacity to determine > this story as muddling trite even if it is from the BBC.
> One of my favorite shows is 'Three and a half men' staring that guy > Charlie Sheen, a celebrity who like many regular people don't get it > about 911. People are asking basic questions, some like Charlie ask > well informed intelligent technical questions. Charlie Sheen is a > celeb he gets heard he get's exposure...but he's/ we're still non the > wiser. Whatever.
> For me the salient point of this thread, is the importance of students > questioning the authority of their sources, Zeitgeist Movie, BBC, > Charlie Sheen, you or me, however unpalatable.
> If you're interested in CNN check Bill Oreily's take - 'Sheen won't > come back' > http://tinyurl.com/2gcmqc
> Perhaps intelligent media studies/ sociology/ history students if > having listened to both men would see the logic of the star of Scary > Movie 4 against CNN's main anchor! Or vice versa (I doubt it)
> As a teacher I'd like to be able to reference wikipedia to be able to > give students the chance to question and pull apart a recognised piece > of engaging media on such an important subject area like Zeitgeist > without ridicule.
> On the 'free and open' wikipedia the zeitgeist movie page is removed > and locked down (After only a few days) - The Zeitgeist movie topic - > whether I agree with it or not has no voice in wikipedia, in my mind > that sucks for educators, learning, wikipedia you, me, students, > knowledge (and the future).
> lol lol
> Make what you will of it.
> On Jul 16, 2:07 pm, "peter allen" <pgp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe Lenin's grave is a communist plot.'(
i watched this from a perspective that i guess is similar to mark nichols - the modern christian viewpoint - and whilst not able to agree with a lot of what was being said i did find a lot of interesting stuff.
i found it interesting that the point of the narrator was often spoken, accompanied by a black/blank screen - giving me a feeling of immediate mistrust.
i found it interesting that the disturbing images, emotive music and pretty cut ins and outs went for some 5 minutes before there was any use of spoken word.
i found it interesting that there was no consideration of an alternative point of view, only the use of manipulated images and sound bytes to portray the "other side" in a negative light.
i found it interesting that in this current climate of international religious unrest, the movie seemed to be placing the majority of mainstream religious groups - christian, muslim, buddhist etc into the same basket as having ripped off the (egyptian???) sun god worship.
all of which reminds me of the studies that i did at uni around the ideas of media manipulation of the masses and in particular the idea of propaganda...
now all this doesn't mean that the movie hasn't had me thinking, and it doesn't mean that i don't agree with anything that it had to say, but it does mean that i watched it while wearing my cynic's hat, and that i have therfore drawn from it in very narrow restricted ways.
leigh is right in saying that its all about love - and the movie is right in suggesting that organised religion has a lot to answer for in its ongoing quest for world domination. the fact that wars can be fought as 'holy wars', that the crusades were justified as being 'of god', that the 'war on terror' is being sold to us a war to rid the world of evil and to make the world right with god, all make me want to scream nasties from the tops of mountains.... but maybe this isn't the place to continue this (but i'm not gonna retract it either).
as a piece of post modern, alternate viewpoint, fringe dwelling movie making, this would be an amazing tool in the classroom for initiating debate on a whole range of issues from stuff around values and morals all the way down to ripping it apart for its purely technical worth.
hey rose - funny how things come around innit... four days chatting about the end of the world and now this - its gotta be a sign....
botts
On 7/16/07, rgrozdanic <rgrozda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i think it's fairly well established that TALO is the sort of place where > language gets hurled about as often as it is carefully folded into shapes > that will inform and enlighten. i'd hate it if we ever lost or successfully > punished that sense of abandon or impishness that often presents here.
> leigh's comment about fascism was one such time where i think it was > obvious he was casting his net wide hoping to ignite some vigourous > discussion rather than attempting to alert the world to neilsen's dark > side. ditto with alex and his famous rubber bands. if anything, i'm feeling > a bit disappointed that it's so long between smackdowns - the lively banter > that, through respectful boisterousness finds some kind of depth in > conversation and helps all of us see different facets of an issue or thing > (or at the very least, entertains).
> let's chill out/wind up/play more or something...
maybe this needs to become another thread??? but whilst wikipedia is a site that has lots of information on it, that information in fact comes from a lot of different sources. its like the collectivist, hive mind thing, but the wikipedia site becomes some sort of focus for all that hiving. so, if they purport to be democratic and are merely a store house for information contributed (and possibly created) by joe average, then i think there are questions to be raised about the removing of content placed on the site. is it like google censoring china??? or is it even just like the zeitgeist movie itself, showing selected versions of the truth....
botts
On 7/16/07, rgrozdanic <rgrozda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i don't have strong feelings about this but i do have some questions
> what about people who say that the holocaust didn't happen or that there > are lizards on the dark side of the moon who are in cahoots with the US > govt? what if they had "proof" and were really good storytellers? should it > be in wikipedia just cos a bunch of people think it? (mind you, just had a > quick random search of the site and found more than a few popular religions > so i can already see the flaw in my question...). i'm interested in why > they removed the article but not outraged - i sort of don't care cos > wikipedia to me is just another website, much as it's a mostly good website. > the internet (so far) is the only real place where there's true freedom to > publish whatever you want and i think we need to remember that when we > support sites that purport to be truly democratic/open. (and anyway, by now > there'd be squillions of people who saved the wikipedia page so that > particular horse has already bolted and will reappear everywhere - great > viral marketing strategy, actually...).
> the second thing i wonder is, would you want wikipedia to be "THE" source > for all information? or even most information? that, i reckon, would be > dangerous, so i'm always sanguine when i hear about kerfuffles in wikipedia > cos i reckon the longer this sort of thing happens, the longer we keep > remembering that wikipedia is just another site. i would really dread the > day where any site becomes so important that we forget that.
> and thanks for the warning about badgers - always the furry ones you gotta > watch, i reckon
> r
> On 7/16/07, sparker < sparke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK I googled 'I believe Lenin's grave is a communist plot' and got > > this.
> > Obviousily two ridulous statements, I would hope that any student I > > would teach would have the critical thinking capacity to determine > > this story as muddling trite even if it is from the BBC.
> > One of my favorite shows is 'Three and a half men' staring that guy > > Charlie Sheen, a celebrity who like many regular people don't get it > > about 911. People are asking basic questions, some like Charlie ask > > well informed intelligent technical questions. Charlie Sheen is a > > celeb he gets heard he get's exposure...but he's/ we're still non the > > wiser. Whatever.
> > For me the salient point of this thread, is the importance of students > > questioning the authority of their sources, Zeitgeist Movie, BBC, > > Charlie Sheen, you or me, however unpalatable.
> > If you're interested in CNN check Bill Oreily's take - 'Sheen won't > > come back' > > http://tinyurl.com/2gcmqc
> > Perhaps intelligent media studies/ sociology/ history students if > > having listened to both men would see the logic of the star of Scary > > Movie 4 against CNN's main anchor! Or vice versa (I doubt it)
> > As a teacher I'd like to be able to reference wikipedia to be able to > > give students the chance to question and pull apart a recognised piece > > of engaging media on such an important subject area like Zeitgeist > > without ridicule.
> > On the 'free and open' wikipedia the zeitgeist movie page is removed > > and locked down (After only a few days) - The Zeitgeist movie topic - > > whether I agree with it or not has no voice in wikipedia, in my mind > > that sucks for educators, learning, wikipedia you, me, students, > > knowledge (and the future).
> > lol lol
> > Make what you will of it.
> > On Jul 16, 2:07 pm, "peter allen" <pgp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I believe Lenin's grave is a communist plot.'(
|
