YouTube video title: The Zeitgeist Movement Response to Media: Death of Osama bin Laden
30 views
Skip to first unread message
genvirO
Sep 14, 2011, 7:53:56 AM9/14/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Title - The Zeitgeist Movement Response to Media: Death of Osama bin
Laden
Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOqQa5k0org&feature=relmfu
Laden
Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOqQa5k0org&feature=relmfu
Pontus Granström
Sep 14, 2011, 1:32:32 PM9/14/11
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
Great stuff!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training?hl=en.
genvirO
Sep 14, 2011, 6:45:04 PM9/14/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Does anyone have any views in relation to this 'movement'?
News - http://www.zeitnews.org/
Website - http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
On Sep 15, 3:32 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great stuff!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Title - The Zeitgeist Movement Response to Media: Death of Osama bin
> > Laden
>
> > Link -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOqQa5k0org&feature=relmfu
News - http://www.zeitnews.org/
Website - http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
On Sep 15, 3:32 am, Pontus Granström <lepon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great stuff!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:53 PM, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Title - The Zeitgeist Movement Response to Media: Death of Osama bin
> > Laden
>
Arky
Sep 14, 2011, 7:21:33 PM9/14/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Well... I don't know. I think that it's gold, mixed in with piles and
piles of dog shit. How much are you willing to pan for the gold?
On Sep 14, 2:45 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have any views in relation to this 'movement'?
>
> News -http://www.zeitnews.org/
>
> Website -http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
piles of dog shit. How much are you willing to pan for the gold?
On Sep 14, 2:45 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have any views in relation to this 'movement'?
>
> News -http://www.zeitnews.org/
>
genvirO
Sep 14, 2011, 7:24:35 PM9/14/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Would you mind explaining what you think the 'dog shit' is? And the
'gold', may as well hit two birds with one stone.
'gold', may as well hit two birds with one stone.
Arky
Sep 14, 2011, 7:38:50 PM9/14/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
The dog shit is that the Zeitgeist videos lack factual veracity, and
are *extremely* sensationalist. They're so fun to watch, but that's
why I find them problematic. Why is it that these ideas could be
presented in a classroom, or read in a book, and be found inane or
boring; but suddenly, when in put in a two-hour Youtube format, piques
everyone's interest? It could be that they've discovered the Secret of
Learning; or they could've been using rhetorical techniques that have
been around for centuries that give arguments form, but not substance.
Zeitgeist has a lot of form, but lacks substance. This debases a lot
of the credibility that I wish these videos had because...
... the gold is that the movie points people's heads in the direction
that *should* instigate some moral outrage, and thus make people want
to change things. I have no qualms with that. I also have no qualms
with the high-technology society that Zeitgeist proposes; fiat-
currency based or not, economies are driven by technological and
memetic innovation for their growth. Scholars like Charles Murray
argue that this has been asymptotic more than how we may initially be
lead to believe. (Gwern, if you're reading this: I find your notes
brilliant. It's a journey to read what you're thinking.)
But I'm tentative about making up my mind, because once I form a
belief it might be hard to get out of it. If one wants to relate this
to intelligence and its improvement, we could talk about groupthink
and its effect on forming truthful understandings, or how people try
to stop this from happening to further their own agendas. That much is
at work here on both sides of the battle lines.
are *extremely* sensationalist. They're so fun to watch, but that's
why I find them problematic. Why is it that these ideas could be
presented in a classroom, or read in a book, and be found inane or
boring; but suddenly, when in put in a two-hour Youtube format, piques
everyone's interest? It could be that they've discovered the Secret of
Learning; or they could've been using rhetorical techniques that have
been around for centuries that give arguments form, but not substance.
Zeitgeist has a lot of form, but lacks substance. This debases a lot
of the credibility that I wish these videos had because...
... the gold is that the movie points people's heads in the direction
that *should* instigate some moral outrage, and thus make people want
to change things. I have no qualms with that. I also have no qualms
with the high-technology society that Zeitgeist proposes; fiat-
currency based or not, economies are driven by technological and
memetic innovation for their growth. Scholars like Charles Murray
argue that this has been asymptotic more than how we may initially be
lead to believe. (Gwern, if you're reading this: I find your notes
brilliant. It's a journey to read what you're thinking.)
But I'm tentative about making up my mind, because once I form a
belief it might be hard to get out of it. If one wants to relate this
to intelligence and its improvement, we could talk about groupthink
and its effect on forming truthful understandings, or how people try
to stop this from happening to further their own agendas. That much is
at work here on both sides of the battle lines.
Message has been deleted
genvirO
Sep 15, 2011, 4:10:52 AM9/15/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
So I learned about this yesterday and I didn't realize until now how
big this actually is and could potentially be within a few years if
its growth continues at the same rate.
Starting from the US in 2008(?) its since infiltrated over 38
countries in both the northern and southern hemisphere. In my country
along they apparently have chapters in each of the 6 states of
Australia.
YouTube - Why I Advocate the Zeitgeist Movement - _____ __. _____
(name blocked)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1eMRLsEdRw
This is all pretty new to me but its a really interesting phenomenon
in itself, regardless of the outcome. Australia is a fairly stable (in
the best sense of the word) country, so I haven't really been
desensitized to terms like 'movements', 'revolutions' or even
'political change', nor would I call my self political or someone who
has sat in a political science class. So, I guess I could say I'm
pretty ignorant about what the potential life expectancy of this is
nor do I have a sense of what the life expectancy was in the past for
previous efforts that could be framed in the same context (e.g.
political change, revolution or movement - anything in relation) as
the Zeitgeist movement.
If anyone wants to share their predictions (Gwern) or just make a
comment about this in general I'd be interested in hearing what you
have to think.
E.g. - Is this fluff or is there some punch?
On Sep 15, 4:24 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, I will say that I’ve only just been introduced to their
> existence, so I’m yet to fully comprehend the depth of the ‘movement’,
> its consequence and what it supports/rejects or otherwise defames.
> Secondly, sorry for the long response, even more so considering I
> haven’t yet watched the following two movies:
> 1. Zeitgeist Addendum
> 2. Zeitgeist moving forward
>
> If you are referring to the video I linked in the first, I’m not sure
> which information you believe is distorted or to what length the
> things that are purported in the videos should be validated. From my
> perspective, most of what was said in this video about the aftermath
> of Osama’s death, the David and Goliath comparison on government
> spending, levelling 9/11 with other events in history and its brief
> perspective on how 9/11 was the catalyst for the US war in Iraq (or
> against terrorism) was mostly pretty valid. On your other point about
> it being *extremely* ‘sensationalised’, I would to say that yes it is
> here however I’m not surprised. I’ve seen it in a much fuller, biased
> form when it comes looking at any typical political campaign, so to
> compare them would be silly, as well as this you only have to turn on
> any movie, video clip or listen to some form of contemporary music to
> realise its prevalence. I think the problem is just in reference to
> the picture they may perhaps have created for themselves in reference
> to them being able to supposedly offer the scientific enlightenment
> period. As well as this, at least for me, they are just the new kid on
> the block and so we still have our magnifying glasses out. So to some
> length I’m willing to play with the idea that there is some
> psychological priming going on here whereby we are more likely to put
> on our critical thinking caps if they present the intellectual theme
> and hence be more critical once there are discrepancies in how they
> deliver information. This is conjecture of course, and perhaps I’m
> being too kind but from how I view it, they are communicating in ways
> that will potentially reach any kind of individual profile, whether
> they are thinkers, feelers or not so much of much. On some level it’s
> hard to imagine it being presented in any other way if it is to still
> maintain its level of informational, emotional and symbolic power.
> Even though it may in the process lose some of its _informational
> integrity_ , it seems as if it may need to have some necessary
> casualties here, basically because the video is short and so it needs
> to be able to reach a wide variety of people. By appeasing a smaller
> sum, it may in the process lose a lot of the audience due to their
> being too much information or not enough emotional engagement that
> helps identify what the ‘bigger picture is’. So to sum up on this
> point, I recognise that there are sometimes going to be manipulative
> practices at hand when someone is trying to convince another about a
> particular thing but I tend not to worry about it too much if the goal
> in mind is in essence, practically minded (I’ll leave it up to your
> good judgment to decide what that may involve). There are portions of
> people that believe that any form of manipulation is a ‘bad’, ‘evil’
> or an unnecessary device used in the game of influence, however, it
> also tends to be the same people that think they either can’t be
> manipulated or are not manipulated often. I think what matters here is
> the motivation behind the thought of manipulating either an
> individual, group, organisation or a country, as hinted. A simple
> example could involve saying to someone “Oh, you look great! I really
> like what you’ve done!” as opposed to “Well, considering the
> circumstances you’ve done ok, but if you were to exercise regularly,
> eat a lot healthier, maybe even get a face lift and purchase better
> clothes I think you could do much better”. Another less extreme
> example, one in which we may all be able to relate to, is surprise
> birthday parties. In a nutshell, you don’t want to tell the person
> information about an upcoming event and if necessary, you are prepared
> to lie to this person regarding that event in order to preserve the
> goal of the person being surprised once they open a door(?) to a
> surprise party. Both of these examples represent a level or a kind of
> manipulation; however they are socially accepted forms of manipulation
> and so, they continue without question. But the thing to notice here
> is that neither of these examples actually produce harm to an
> individual, instead they potentially enhance a person’s well-being.
> There are plenty of socially accepted (doesn’t imply that they are
> legal) forms of manipulation that are conducive to the detriment of
> people’s well-being, the environment and the rest of its inhabitants,
> however they tend to not nearly receive as much criticism as an idea
> such as the Zeitergeist movement based on psychological ideas such as
> habituation and conformity.
>
> Finally, in the case of convincing someone of something, I tend to
> view positive productive manipulation (new concept) as something that
> involves engaging people on an emotional, logical and psychological
> level to bring about change for the prospering all parties involved in
> the manipulation and people in general. By achieving these 3 levels,
> one is able to consolidate the information in more than one way and
> hence the concept being delivered is not only more likely to be
> retained and learned but the person is also more likely to ‘do
> something about it’.
>
> Anyway, I’ll finish up now. I wanted to mention a few other things for
> reinforcement as well as this address some of your other points made
> but I think I’ll do that another time.
big this actually is and could potentially be within a few years if
its growth continues at the same rate.
Starting from the US in 2008(?) its since infiltrated over 38
countries in both the northern and southern hemisphere. In my country
along they apparently have chapters in each of the 6 states of
Australia.
YouTube - Why I Advocate the Zeitgeist Movement - _____ __. _____
(name blocked)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1eMRLsEdRw
This is all pretty new to me but its a really interesting phenomenon
in itself, regardless of the outcome. Australia is a fairly stable (in
the best sense of the word) country, so I haven't really been
desensitized to terms like 'movements', 'revolutions' or even
'political change', nor would I call my self political or someone who
has sat in a political science class. So, I guess I could say I'm
pretty ignorant about what the potential life expectancy of this is
nor do I have a sense of what the life expectancy was in the past for
previous efforts that could be framed in the same context (e.g.
political change, revolution or movement - anything in relation) as
the Zeitgeist movement.
If anyone wants to share their predictions (Gwern) or just make a
comment about this in general I'd be interested in hearing what you
have to think.
E.g. - Is this fluff or is there some punch?
On Sep 15, 4:24 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First of all, I will say that I’ve only just been introduced to their
> existence, so I’m yet to fully comprehend the depth of the ‘movement’,
> its consequence and what it supports/rejects or otherwise defames.
> Secondly, sorry for the long response, even more so considering I
> haven’t yet watched the following two movies:
> 1. Zeitgeist Addendum
> 2. Zeitgeist moving forward
>
> If you are referring to the video I linked in the first, I’m not sure
> which information you believe is distorted or to what length the
> things that are purported in the videos should be validated. From my
> perspective, most of what was said in this video about the aftermath
> of Osama’s death, the David and Goliath comparison on government
> spending, levelling 9/11 with other events in history and its brief
> perspective on how 9/11 was the catalyst for the US war in Iraq (or
> against terrorism) was mostly pretty valid. On your other point about
> it being *extremely* ‘sensationalised’, I would to say that yes it is
> here however I’m not surprised. I’ve seen it in a much fuller, biased
> form when it comes looking at any typical political campaign, so to
> compare them would be silly, as well as this you only have to turn on
> any movie, video clip or listen to some form of contemporary music to
> realise its prevalence. I think the problem is just in reference to
> the picture they may perhaps have created for themselves in reference
> to them being able to supposedly offer the scientific enlightenment
> period. As well as this, at least for me, they are just the new kid on
> the block and so we still have our magnifying glasses out. So to some
> length I’m willing to play with the idea that there is some
> psychological priming going on here whereby we are more likely to put
> on our critical thinking caps if they present the intellectual theme
> and hence be more critical once there are discrepancies in how they
> deliver information. This is conjecture of course, and perhaps I’m
> being too kind but from how I view it, they are communicating in ways
> that will potentially reach any kind of individual profile, whether
> they are thinkers, feelers or not so much of much. On some level it’s
> hard to imagine it being presented in any other way if it is to still
> maintain its level of informational, emotional and symbolic power.
> Even though it may in the process lose some of its _informational
> integrity_ , it seems as if it may need to have some necessary
> casualties here, basically because the video is short and so it needs
> to be able to reach a wide variety of people. By appeasing a smaller
> sum, it may in the process lose a lot of the audience due to their
> being too much information or not enough emotional engagement that
> helps identify what the ‘bigger picture is’. So to sum up on this
> point, I recognise that there are sometimes going to be manipulative
> practices at hand when someone is trying to convince another about a
> particular thing but I tend not to worry about it too much if the goal
> in mind is in essence, practically minded (I’ll leave it up to your
> good judgment to decide what that may involve). There are portions of
> people that believe that any form of manipulation is a ‘bad’, ‘evil’
> or an unnecessary device used in the game of influence, however, it
> also tends to be the same people that think they either can’t be
> manipulated or are not manipulated often. I think what matters here is
> the motivation behind the thought of manipulating either an
> individual, group, organisation or a country, as hinted. A simple
> example could involve saying to someone “Oh, you look great! I really
> like what you’ve done!” as opposed to “Well, considering the
> circumstances you’ve done ok, but if you were to exercise regularly,
> eat a lot healthier, maybe even get a face lift and purchase better
> clothes I think you could do much better”. Another less extreme
> example, one in which we may all be able to relate to, is surprise
> birthday parties. In a nutshell, you don’t want to tell the person
> information about an upcoming event and if necessary, you are prepared
> to lie to this person regarding that event in order to preserve the
> goal of the person being surprised once they open a door(?) to a
> surprise party. Both of these examples represent a level or a kind of
> manipulation; however they are socially accepted forms of manipulation
> and so, they continue without question. But the thing to notice here
> is that neither of these examples actually produce harm to an
> individual, instead they potentially enhance a person’s well-being.
> There are plenty of socially accepted (doesn’t imply that they are
> legal) forms of manipulation that are conducive to the detriment of
> people’s well-being, the environment and the rest of its inhabitants,
> however they tend to not nearly receive as much criticism as an idea
> such as the Zeitergeist movement based on psychological ideas such as
> habituation and conformity.
>
> Finally, in the case of convincing someone of something, I tend to
> view positive productive manipulation (new concept) as something that
> involves engaging people on an emotional, logical and psychological
> level to bring about change for the prospering all parties involved in
> the manipulation and people in general. By achieving these 3 levels,
> one is able to consolidate the information in more than one way and
> hence the concept being delivered is not only more likely to be
> retained and learned but the person is also more likely to ‘do
> something about it’.
>
> Anyway, I’ll finish up now. I wanted to mention a few other things for
> reinforcement as well as this address some of your other points made
> but I think I’ll do that another time.
Message has been deleted
genvirO
Sep 15, 2011, 7:19:03 AM9/15/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
YouTube video - Title: Human Behaviour - Jas Garcha - Z-Day Edmonton
2011
Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCx9Dg4dqEM
INFO: Jas Garcha, a biology researcher at the University of Alberta,
explains how important our environments are in shaping our behaviour,
giving a talk for Zday 2011 about how he believes human beings will be
able to 'adapt' to the new system.
Explanation of Zday = Something that occurs each year around March to
increase public awareness about the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus
Project.
On Sep 15, 6:10 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So I learned about this yesterday and I didn't realize until now how
> big this actually is and could potentially be within a few years if
> its growth continues at the same rate.
>
> Starting from the US in 2008(?) its since infiltrated over 38
> countries in both the northern and southern hemisphere. In my country
> along they apparently have chapters in each of the 6 states of
> Australia.
>
> YouTube - Why I Advocate the Zeitgeist Movement - _____ __. _____
> (name blocked)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1eMRLsEdRw
> ...
>
> read more »
2011
Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCx9Dg4dqEM
INFO: Jas Garcha, a biology researcher at the University of Alberta,
explains how important our environments are in shaping our behaviour,
giving a talk for Zday 2011 about how he believes human beings will be
able to 'adapt' to the new system.
Explanation of Zday = Something that occurs each year around March to
increase public awareness about the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus
Project.
On Sep 15, 6:10 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So I learned about this yesterday and I didn't realize until now how
> big this actually is and could potentially be within a few years if
> its growth continues at the same rate.
>
> Starting from the US in 2008(?) its since infiltrated over 38
> countries in both the northern and southern hemisphere. In my country
> along they apparently have chapters in each of the 6 states of
> Australia.
>
> YouTube - Why I Advocate the Zeitgeist Movement - _____ __. _____
>
> read more »
Message has been deleted
genvirO
Sep 17, 2011, 7:11:13 AM9/17/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Jacque Fresco = Fascinating person - modern day Da Vinci?
Who is Jacque Fresco?
Jacque Fresco (born March 13, 1916), is a self-educated structural
designer, philosopher of science, concept artist, educator, and
futurist. His interests span a wide range of disciplines including
several in philosophy, science, and engineering.
YouTube video -->
Title: Futures By Design - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kXvGiRhUUs&feature=related
Gets more interesting as the documentary goes along.
Thanks.
genvirO
P.S - Stay curious. Stay inventive.
On Sep 15, 9:19 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> YouTube video - Title: Human Behaviour - Jas Garcha - Z-Day Edmonton
> 2011
>
> Link -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCx9Dg4dqEM
> ...
>
> read more »
Who is Jacque Fresco?
Jacque Fresco (born March 13, 1916), is a self-educated structural
designer, philosopher of science, concept artist, educator, and
futurist. His interests span a wide range of disciplines including
several in philosophy, science, and engineering.
YouTube video -->
Title: Futures By Design - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kXvGiRhUUs&feature=related
Gets more interesting as the documentary goes along.
Thanks.
genvirO
P.S - Stay curious. Stay inventive.
On Sep 15, 9:19 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> YouTube video - Title: Human Behaviour - Jas Garcha - Z-Day Edmonton
> 2011
>
>
> read more »
KD Jones
Sep 18, 2011, 3:09:39 AM9/18/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Oh my assorted, numerous and deceptive dieties.
This stuff sounds like so much other stuff in yet another package. It
was odd, because when I first heard about it I was put in mind of
Theosophy and Steiner, especially via Waldorf educational voodoo and
his related anthropoofery stuff (as a result of previous reading I'd
done on them due to real or threatened involvement by people close to
me). So I look them up on the web, and POOF, there's Theosophy and
Steiner being implicated in the Zeitgeist thing... though my by
limited viewing it's possible that the rationship is only drawn by
folks with other conspiratorial issues. So it may be just a question
of "flavor."
I think Arky makes a point that can't be overstated: the prettiness of
the packaging is likely both a symptom and a warning. Perhaps a
symptom of the overall philosophy's "need" for a pretty package, which
may indicate an intentional "marketing" orientation (never a good
thing in the realm of "big ideas," a lack of supportable ideas, or the
possibility that the whole attraction IS in the prettiness; perhaps a
warning that all the pretty little memes that seem to automatically
and accidentally piggyback on pretty packaging will overpower any real
ideas that may be present.
There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous political /
philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general sense
that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful action)
tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there." Or, in the words of
the great British philosopher Gordon Sumner, "men go crazy in
congregations, they only get better one by one."
Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a very
happy way, and at odds with my very limited understanding of how
humans actually work.
And yes, I know I'm an idiot for saying it like that. And I may just
be missing the peace train.
I also would like to hear what anyone willing to invest the time has
to say about this.
This stuff sounds like so much other stuff in yet another package. It
was odd, because when I first heard about it I was put in mind of
Theosophy and Steiner, especially via Waldorf educational voodoo and
his related anthropoofery stuff (as a result of previous reading I'd
done on them due to real or threatened involvement by people close to
me). So I look them up on the web, and POOF, there's Theosophy and
Steiner being implicated in the Zeitgeist thing... though my by
limited viewing it's possible that the rationship is only drawn by
folks with other conspiratorial issues. So it may be just a question
of "flavor."
I think Arky makes a point that can't be overstated: the prettiness of
the packaging is likely both a symptom and a warning. Perhaps a
symptom of the overall philosophy's "need" for a pretty package, which
may indicate an intentional "marketing" orientation (never a good
thing in the realm of "big ideas," a lack of supportable ideas, or the
possibility that the whole attraction IS in the prettiness; perhaps a
warning that all the pretty little memes that seem to automatically
and accidentally piggyback on pretty packaging will overpower any real
ideas that may be present.
There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous political /
philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general sense
that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful action)
tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there." Or, in the words of
the great British philosopher Gordon Sumner, "men go crazy in
congregations, they only get better one by one."
Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a very
happy way, and at odds with my very limited understanding of how
humans actually work.
And yes, I know I'm an idiot for saying it like that. And I may just
be missing the peace train.
I also would like to hear what anyone willing to invest the time has
to say about this.
KD Jones
Sep 18, 2011, 3:22:20 AM9/18/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Oops. Real apologies to Arky.
On reading my response, it looks VERY much as if I was intentionally
attributing statements to him that he neither made nor implied.
Sloppy. Didn't mean to.
I only meant that his comments resonated in my own little mental
catbox, causing me to paw my own dirt around into unrelated patterns.
Sorry, man.
On reading my response, it looks VERY much as if I was intentionally
attributing statements to him that he neither made nor implied.
Sloppy. Didn't mean to.
I only meant that his comments resonated in my own little mental
catbox, causing me to paw my own dirt around into unrelated patterns.
Sorry, man.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Arky
Sep 18, 2011, 1:03:43 PM9/18/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
No problem. Never thought otherwise.
Actually, to quip Dorothy Parker: I don't care what is written about
me, only that it isn't true.
Actually, to quip Dorothy Parker: I don't care what is written about
me, only that it isn't true.
Arky
Sep 18, 2011, 1:09:44 PM9/18/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
On Sep 18, 12:15 am, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bottom line, our shit stinks pretty bad right now, thus it's worth to
> at least consider other possibilities even if that involves
> reconditioning the way we perceive the value of natural resources,
> human beings and how they interact.
GenvirO, have you heard of The Seasteading Institute? Or the
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence? You could avoid
giving undue weight to the Zeitgeist Movement (and thus avoid cultish
bias, or groupthink) by adding a greater awareness of other
worldchanging institutions (or 'possibilities') to your mental
repertoire.
I think that both carry more credence, if not just less bullshit, than
the Zeitgeist Movement has had in its short career. Either that, or
their bullshit is much, much more subtle (a feature, not a bug!).
> Bottom line, our shit stinks pretty bad right now, thus it's worth to
> at least consider other possibilities even if that involves
> reconditioning the way we perceive the value of natural resources,
> human beings and how they interact.
GenvirO, have you heard of The Seasteading Institute? Or the
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence? You could avoid
giving undue weight to the Zeitgeist Movement (and thus avoid cultish
bias, or groupthink) by adding a greater awareness of other
worldchanging institutions (or 'possibilities') to your mental
repertoire.
I think that both carry more credence, if not just less bullshit, than
the Zeitgeist Movement has had in its short career. Either that, or
their bullshit is much, much more subtle (a feature, not a bug!).
Arky
Sep 18, 2011, 1:18:36 PM9/18/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
On Sep 18, 12:15 am, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bottom line, our shit stinks pretty bad right now, thus it's worth to
> at least consider other possibilities even if that involves
> reconditioning the way we perceive the value of natural resources,
> human beings and how they interact.
Not sure if the previous post went through...
> Bottom line, our shit stinks pretty bad right now, thus it's worth to
> at least consider other possibilities even if that involves
> reconditioning the way we perceive the value of natural resources,
> human beings and how they interact.
Anyway, I shall point you in the direction of the Seasteading
Institute, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence,
Worldchanging (guess what they're about), and the Lifeboat Foundation.
http://seasteading.org/
http://singinst.org/
http://worldchanging.com/
http://lifeboat.com/ex/main
These are movements with a similar gestalt that Zeitgeist has: change
the world in a big way (or in the case of Lifeboat, stop it from
changing in a way that will obliterate us all). I'm pointing you in
their direction because one way to avoid giving undue weight to the
Zeitgeist Movement, thus defending against cultishness and groupthink,
is simply to look at the options: or, as you put it, the
'possibilities'.
Future societies have a large design-space to draw from. Zeitgeist's
proposals only constitute a fraction of that space. Exposing onseself
to the rest, especially when these particular institutions avoid a lot
of Zeitgeist's pitfalls, is important.
Arky
P.S. say 'change' aloud ten times. Change... change... change...
change...
Arky
Sep 18, 2011, 1:44:07 PM9/18/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Also, if there is a factual inaccuracy, and someone manipulates us to
believe in that factual inaccuracy, or to get us to act based of a
statement involving the factual inaccuracy, they are being dishonest.
They either don't know this, or they do, but either way, they are
being dishonest.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Some people believe that the ends justify the means, but manipulation,
despite not being mutually exclusive, is still a separate thing from
lying. It is possible to create a relevant emotional appeal (or
'manipulation'), while still keeping your facts straight. If I was
being manipulated towards positive ends, I would not resent that, so
long as they were being truthful about it. And, before someone goes
off and says, 'who's to say if a certain ends justifies a certain
means? Your morals don't have priority over mine!', I would retort
that this is perhaps a reflection on the _complexity_ of ends and
means, and thus the unwillingness to grok them in full. Anyone who had
a full understanding of a scenario should be able to make
justification of their plans without resorting to deceit.
There is still an optimal situation, even if optima exist on several
points of the function and isn't accessible to a single or multiple
intelligences.
... hence N-Back. :P
> I don't mean to sound rude, but you haven't exactly said a lot (or
> anything for that matter) that _logically_ compromises the idea of
> whether someone should or shouldn't support the movement.
> yourself.
>
> Why should pretty packaging stand as a warning?
> - Is it because you associate marketing with money, influence (someone
> trying to convince you of something), both, or something else entirely
> such as just someone that's trying to make a quick buck from you?
>
> Firstly, yes they do need money, but that is only one way someone can
> support them.
> Secondly, of course they need to influence people in what ever way is
> most conducive to altering peoples opinions. The more numbers they
> have the more likely they will be able to 'do something'. Simple logic
> here. Would you instead find them more appealing or otherwise more
> like someone whom deserves your sympathy if they instead were marching
> on the streets with big signs and strapping themselves to trees? Does
> this seem more genuine? Even if it is, it hasn't been effective in the
> past.
> political perspectives, how does this actually contribute to whether
> or not your 'bullshit detector' goes off? Once again what you've said
> here stands as no argument, its just well, bullshit.
>
> (see my 'bullshit detector' going off here?)
> but I don't see _logically_ how these feelings could arise.
>
> "Someone is said because they've been bitten by a dog." = Logical
> explanation
>
> "Someone thinks something is slippery and unsupportable in a happy
> way - because of well, I don't know, maybe it's just the vibe of it,
> do you know what I mean man!??!? Do you dig my vibe?" = Not a
> logical explanation
> another, however, the degree to which I hope to be able to has not
> been determined yet.
>
> I'm still researching.
>
> Keeping an open mind before I make any illogical rash conclusions,
> whether that be in relation to the prospect of participating or moving
> in the opposite direction.
believe in that factual inaccuracy, or to get us to act based of a
statement involving the factual inaccuracy, they are being dishonest.
They either don't know this, or they do, but either way, they are
being dishonest.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.
Some people believe that the ends justify the means, but manipulation,
despite not being mutually exclusive, is still a separate thing from
lying. It is possible to create a relevant emotional appeal (or
'manipulation'), while still keeping your facts straight. If I was
being manipulated towards positive ends, I would not resent that, so
long as they were being truthful about it. And, before someone goes
off and says, 'who's to say if a certain ends justifies a certain
means? Your morals don't have priority over mine!', I would retort
that this is perhaps a reflection on the _complexity_ of ends and
means, and thus the unwillingness to grok them in full. Anyone who had
a full understanding of a scenario should be able to make
justification of their plans without resorting to deceit.
There is still an optimal situation, even if optima exist on several
points of the function and isn't accessible to a single or multiple
intelligences.
... hence N-Back. :P
> I don't mean to sound rude, but you haven't exactly said a lot (or
> anything for that matter) that _logically_ compromises the idea of
> whether someone should or shouldn't support the movement.
>
> "I think Arky makes a point that can't be overstated: the prettiness
> of the packaging is likely both a symptom and a warning."
>
> This is putting words into Arky's mouth, as already acknowledged by
> "I think Arky makes a point that can't be overstated: the prettiness
> of the packaging is likely both a symptom and a warning."
>
> yourself.
>
> Why should pretty packaging stand as a warning?
> - Is it because you associate marketing with money, influence (someone
> trying to convince you of something), both, or something else entirely
> such as just someone that's trying to make a quick buck from you?
>
> Firstly, yes they do need money, but that is only one way someone can
> support them.
> Secondly, of course they need to influence people in what ever way is
> most conducive to altering peoples opinions. The more numbers they
> have the more likely they will be able to 'do something'. Simple logic
> here. Would you instead find them more appealing or otherwise more
> like someone whom deserves your sympathy if they instead were marching
> on the streets with big signs and strapping themselves to trees? Does
> this seem more genuine? Even if it is, it hasn't been effective in the
> past.
>
> "There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous political /
> philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general sense
> that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
> flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful action)
> tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there.""
>
> Ok, regardless as to whether or not there is use of political past
> "There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous political /
> philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general sense
> that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
> flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful action)
> tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there.""
>
> political perspectives, how does this actually contribute to whether
> or not your 'bullshit detector' goes off? Once again what you've said
> here stands as no argument, its just well, bullshit.
>
> (see my 'bullshit detector' going off here?)
>
> "Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a
> very happy way, and at odds with my very limited understanding of how
> humans actually work. "
>
> Now I'm not about to project on to you about how you should 'feel',
> "Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a
> very happy way, and at odds with my very limited understanding of how
> humans actually work. "
>
> but I don't see _logically_ how these feelings could arise.
>
> "Someone is said because they've been bitten by a dog." = Logical
> explanation
>
> "Someone thinks something is slippery and unsupportable in a happy
> way - because of well, I don't know, maybe it's just the vibe of it,
> do you know what I mean man!??!? Do you dig my vibe?" = Not a
> logical explanation
>
> "I also would like to hear what anyone willing to invest the time has
> to say about this. "
>
> Personally, I'm contemplating the idea of participating in one form or
> "I also would like to hear what anyone willing to invest the time has
> to say about this. "
>
> another, however, the degree to which I hope to be able to has not
> been determined yet.
>
> I'm still researching.
>
> Keeping an open mind before I make any illogical rash conclusions,
> whether that be in relation to the prospect of participating or moving
> in the opposite direction.
>
> Bottom line, our shit stinks pretty bad right now, thus it's worth to
> at least consider other possibilities even if that involves
> reconditioning the way we perceive the value of natural resources,
> human beings and how they interact.
>
> Bottom line, our shit stinks pretty bad right now, thus it's worth to
> at least consider other possibilities even if that involves
> reconditioning the way we perceive the value of natural resources,
> human beings and how they interact.
>
☉
Sep 18, 2011, 3:46:37 PM9/18/11
to brain-t...@googlegroups.com
These messages (totally off-topic to the intent of the forum, no matter how much equivocating anyone engages in) seem to me to illustrate not only ignorance of what the "Zeitgeist Movement" is but also what it's about. Of course, I'm not a participant in it myself, but I am somewhat familiar with it.
On Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:18:36 PM UTC-5, Arky wrote:
1) Peter Joseph's films and The Zeitgeist Movement are not the same. The former are an artistic expression created by one person (not counting sources he may have used to make his point); the latter is a collective that attempts to educate the public about certain of its premisses and modes of operation to bring about the reality of what it sustains as an ideal, that is, people who voluntarily join it adhere to certain ideas as important.
2) The Zeitgeist Movement, Peter Joseph, Jacques Fresco, and The Venus Project are not the same. The former two have been briefly mentioned. The latter two: Fresco is an old guy who has devoted his life to the Venus Project, his brain child. The Venus Project, which gained wide recognition thanks almost entirely to Peter Joseph, his films, and TZM, no longer allows PJ or TZM to use their materials in their messages and essentially comprises the collective idea of what Fresco thinks the world should more or less become based on a resource-based economy.
With these two very simple clarifications, one has a hard time understanding the antipathy expressed towards any one of the four figures here mentioned. Perhaps someone can explain it to me, because I'm at quite a loss. Furthermore, I don't understand how PJ, JF, TZM, or TVP can or do interfere with the other "world changing" efforts that may or may not be of a similar standing. And more specifically, I don't know how a childish analogy between theosophy and TZM can show that TZM is just another brand of the former.
So far that I can see, the B.S. has been generated entirely be those who just "don't like it".
argumzio
On Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:18:36 PM UTC-5, Arky wrote:
KD Jones
Sep 21, 2011, 12:09:06 AM9/21/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
gevirO -
To back up and apologize (while still holding your ground) was
honorable, kind, and appreciated. Fact is, you were right - my post
was pointless. Stuff from gut level, more felt than thoight, maybe
appropriate in a longer, private and casual conversation, but not on a
public forum.
I have nothing but respect for anyone honestly and mindfully trying to
change things mindfully, regardless of either my "sense" of how
they're attempting it or my reasoning ina any direction.
The only point that I'd attempt hold to regards concern about the
packaging / marketing of ideas, and how the nature of the presentation
and proliferation affect the core rigor and clarity required,
especially when the "idea" takes on the scope and complexity of a
system. But even that is clearly off-topic, and may or may not have
any bearing on the movement being considered.
So. Honest thanks for your decency, and sincere apologies to all for
the static, especially regarding a social response predicated by
meaningful and pressing issues. Way my bad.
On Sep 18, 4:48 am, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry KD, my response was filled with a few red herrings (mostly
> appeal to ridicule), so if like you can ignore those and just respond
> to the main points.
>
> Which is to say that the conclusions you've reached about the
> 'movement' are not exactly logically sound, regardless as to whether
> they are truth or not. You’ve presented a lot of statements, however,
> there isn’t a logically sound conclusion to support these statements.
>
> #1. Ok, so you say there’s some Theosophy, Steiner and Waldorf here.
> Where is the evidence for this? Why do you think this is bad/good?
>
> #2. “the prettiness of the packaging is likely both a symptom and a
> warning”
> - why would this discredits the value of the concept?
> “(never a good thing in the realm of "big ideas," a lack of
>
> This is a fallacy, but that’s irrelevant.
>
> #4. “There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous
>
> This is another fallacy, but this time relevant.
>
> Why do you think that borrowing a bit here and there from different
> perspectives is a bad thing? Evidence for this view? This is not to
> say that you are in saying this however.
>
> #5. “Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a
>
> This is a red herring. If it’s slippery, creepy or unsupportable
> please provide a logical argument or some decent evidence for why you
> think this is the case.
>
> Thanks KD
>
> Sorry again for not being so civil before.
>
> I’ve spoken to people about this and the negative feedback I’ve
> received so far in relation to The Zeitgeist Movement has not exactly
> been founded on solid grounding. Instead, for some reason, people are
> more inclined to provide there knee jerk reaction in relation to
> something that requires a lot of careful thought.
>
> Once again, I’m still making up my mind and I can imagine that this
> will continue until I’m satisfied I’ve done enough research on it to
> the point where I think I can make a decent conclusion about its
> efficacy.
> ...
>
> read more »
To back up and apologize (while still holding your ground) was
honorable, kind, and appreciated. Fact is, you were right - my post
was pointless. Stuff from gut level, more felt than thoight, maybe
appropriate in a longer, private and casual conversation, but not on a
public forum.
I have nothing but respect for anyone honestly and mindfully trying to
change things mindfully, regardless of either my "sense" of how
they're attempting it or my reasoning ina any direction.
The only point that I'd attempt hold to regards concern about the
packaging / marketing of ideas, and how the nature of the presentation
and proliferation affect the core rigor and clarity required,
especially when the "idea" takes on the scope and complexity of a
system. But even that is clearly off-topic, and may or may not have
any bearing on the movement being considered.
So. Honest thanks for your decency, and sincere apologies to all for
the static, especially regarding a social response predicated by
meaningful and pressing issues. Way my bad.
On Sep 18, 4:48 am, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry KD, my response was filled with a few red herrings (mostly
> appeal to ridicule), so if like you can ignore those and just respond
> to the main points.
>
> Which is to say that the conclusions you've reached about the
> 'movement' are not exactly logically sound, regardless as to whether
> they are truth or not. You’ve presented a lot of statements, however,
> there isn’t a logically sound conclusion to support these statements.
>
> #1. Ok, so you say there’s some Theosophy, Steiner and Waldorf here.
> Where is the evidence for this? Why do you think this is bad/good?
>
> #2. “the prettiness of the packaging is likely both a symptom and a
> warning”
> - why would this discredits the value of the concept?
> “(never a good thing in the realm of "big ideas," a lack of
> supportable ideas, or the
> possibility that the whole attraction IS in the prettiness; perhaps a
> warning that all the pretty little memes that seem to automatically
> and accidentally piggyback on pretty packaging will overpower any
> real
> ideas that may be present. “
> possibility that the whole attraction IS in the prettiness; perhaps a
> warning that all the pretty little memes that seem to automatically
> and accidentally piggyback on pretty packaging will overpower any
> real
>
> This is a fallacy, but that’s irrelevant.
>
> #4. “There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous
> political /
> philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general
> sense
> that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
> flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful
> action)
> tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there.”
> philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general
> sense
> that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
> flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful
> action)
>
> This is another fallacy, but this time relevant.
>
> Why do you think that borrowing a bit here and there from different
> perspectives is a bad thing? Evidence for this view? This is not to
> say that you are in saying this however.
>
> #5. “Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a
> very
> happy way, and at odds with my very limited understanding of how
> humans actually work. “
> happy way, and at odds with my very limited understanding of how
>
> This is a red herring. If it’s slippery, creepy or unsupportable
> please provide a logical argument or some decent evidence for why you
> think this is the case.
>
> Thanks KD
>
> Sorry again for not being so civil before.
>
> I’ve spoken to people about this and the negative feedback I’ve
> received so far in relation to The Zeitgeist Movement has not exactly
> been founded on solid grounding. Instead, for some reason, people are
> more inclined to provide there knee jerk reaction in relation to
> something that requires a lot of careful thought.
>
> Once again, I’m still making up my mind and I can imagine that this
> will continue until I’m satisfied I’ve done enough research on it to
> the point where I think I can make a decent conclusion about its
> efficacy.
>
> On Sep 18, 6:15 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't mean to sound rude, but you haven't exactly said a lot (or
> > anything for that matter) that _logically_ compromises the idea of
> > whether someone should or shouldn't support the movement.
>
> On Sep 18, 6:15 pm, genvirO <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't mean to sound rude, but you haven't exactly said a lot (or
> > anything for that matter) that _logically_ compromises the idea of
> > whether someone should or shouldn't support the movement.
>
> > "I think Arky makes a point that can't be overstated: the prettiness
> > of the packaging is likely both a symptom and a warning."
>
> > of the packaging is likely both a symptom and a warning."
>
> > This is putting words into Arky's mouth, as already acknowledged by
> > yourself.
>
> > Why should pretty packaging stand as a warning?
> > - Is it because you associate marketing with money, influence (someone
> > trying to convince you of something), both, or something else entirely
> > such as just someone that's trying to make a quick buck from you?
>
> > Firstly, yes they do need money, but that is only one way someone can
> > support them.
> > Secondly, of course they need to influence people in what ever way is
> > most conducive to altering peoples opinions. The more numbers they
> > have the more likely they will be able to 'do something'. Simple logic
> > here. Would you instead find them more appealing or otherwise more
> > like someone whom deserves your sympathy if they instead were marching
> > on the streets with big signs and strapping themselves to trees? Does
> > this seem more genuine? Even if it is, it hasn't been effective in the
> > past.
>
> > yourself.
>
> > Why should pretty packaging stand as a warning?
> > - Is it because you associate marketing with money, influence (someone
> > trying to convince you of something), both, or something else entirely
> > such as just someone that's trying to make a quick buck from you?
>
> > Firstly, yes they do need money, but that is only one way someone can
> > support them.
> > Secondly, of course they need to influence people in what ever way is
> > most conducive to altering peoples opinions. The more numbers they
> > have the more likely they will be able to 'do something'. Simple logic
> > here. Would you instead find them more appealing or otherwise more
> > like someone whom deserves your sympathy if they instead were marching
> > on the streets with big signs and strapping themselves to trees? Does
> > this seem more genuine? Even if it is, it hasn't been effective in the
> > past.
>
> > "There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous political /
> > philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general sense
> > that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
> > flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful action)
> > tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there.""
>
> > philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general sense
> > that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
> > flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful action)
> > tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there.""
>
> > Ok, regardless as to whether or not there is use of political past
> > political perspectives, how does this actually contribute to whether
> > or not your 'bullshit detector' goes off? Once again what you've said
> > here stands as no argument, its just well, bullshit.
>
> > (see my 'bullshit detector' going off here?)
>
> > political perspectives, how does this actually contribute to whether
> > or not your 'bullshit detector' goes off? Once again what you've said
> > here stands as no argument, its just well, bullshit.
>
> > (see my 'bullshit detector' going off here?)
>
> > "Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a
> > very happy way, and at odds with my very limited understanding of how
> > humans actually work. "
>
> > very happy way, and at odds with my very limited understanding of how
> > humans actually work. "
>
> > Now I'm not about to project on to you about how you should 'feel',
> > but I don't see _logically_ how these feelings could arise.
>
> > "Someone is said because they've been bitten by a dog." = Logical
> > explanation
>
> > "Someone thinks something is slippery and unsupportable in a happy
> > way - because of well, I don't know, maybe it's just the vibe of it,
> > do you know what I mean man!??!? Do you dig my vibe?" = Not a
> > logical explanation
>
> > but I don't see _logically_ how these feelings could arise.
>
> > "Someone is said because they've been bitten by a dog." = Logical
> > explanation
>
> > "Someone thinks something is slippery and unsupportable in a happy
> > way - because of well, I don't know, maybe it's just the vibe of it,
> > do you know what I mean man!??!? Do you dig my vibe?" = Not a
> > logical explanation
>
> > "I also would like to hear what anyone willing to invest the time has
> > to say about this. "
>
> > to say about this. "
>
> > Personally, I'm contemplating the idea of participating in one form or
> > another, however, the degree to which I hope to be able to has not
> > been determined yet.
>
> > I'm still researching.
>
> > Keeping an open mind before I make any illogical rash conclusions,
> > whether that be in relation to the prospect of participating or moving
> > in the opposite direction.
>
> > another, however, the degree to which I hope to be able to has not
> > been determined yet.
>
> > I'm still researching.
>
> > Keeping an open mind before I make any illogical rash conclusions,
> > whether that be in relation to the prospect of participating or moving
> > in the opposite direction.
>
> > Bottom line, our shit stinks pretty bad right now, thus it's worth to
> > at least consider other possibilities even if that involves
> > reconditioning the way we perceive the value of natural resources,
> > human beings and how they interact.
>
> > at least consider other possibilities even if that involves
> > reconditioning the way we perceive the value of natural resources,
> > human beings and how they interact.
>
>
> read more »
γενβιρΟ
Oct 19, 2011, 7:05:48 AM10/19/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Peter Joseph: Message to Occupy Wall Street & The World | The
Zeitgeist Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
> > received so far in relation to TheZeitgeistMovement has not exactly
> > > > > Steiner being implicated in theZeitgeistthing... though my by
>
> read more »
Zeitgeist Movement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
> > > > > limited viewing it's possible that the rationship is only drawn by
> > > > > folks with other conspiratorial issues. So it may be just a question
> > > > > of "flavor."
>
> > > > > I think Arky makes a point that can't be overstated: the prettiness of
> > > > > the packaging is likely both a symptom and a warning. Perhaps a
> > > > > symptom of the overall philosophy's "need" for a pretty package, which
> > > > > may indicate an intentional "marketing" orientation (never a good
> > > > > thing in the realm of "big ideas," a lack of supportable ideas, or the
> > > > > possibility that the whole attraction IS in the prettiness; perhaps a
> > > > > warning that all the pretty little memes that seem to automatically
> > > > > and accidentally piggyback on pretty packaging will overpower any real
> > > > > ideas that may be present.
>
> > > > > There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous political /
> > > > > philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general sense
> > > > > that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
> > > > > flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful action)
> > > > > tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there." Or, in the words of
> > > > > the great British philosopher Gordon Sumner, "men go crazy in
> > > > > congregations, they only get better one by one."
>
> > > > > Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a very
>
> ...
> > > > > folks with other conspiratorial issues. So it may be just a question
> > > > > of "flavor."
>
> > > > > I think Arky makes a point that can't be overstated: the prettiness of
> > > > > the packaging is likely both a symptom and a warning. Perhaps a
> > > > > symptom of the overall philosophy's "need" for a pretty package, which
> > > > > may indicate an intentional "marketing" orientation (never a good
> > > > > thing in the realm of "big ideas," a lack of supportable ideas, or the
> > > > > possibility that the whole attraction IS in the prettiness; perhaps a
> > > > > warning that all the pretty little memes that seem to automatically
> > > > > and accidentally piggyback on pretty packaging will overpower any real
> > > > > ideas that may be present.
>
> > > > > There seem to be are so many bits and pieces of previous political /
> > > > > philosophical meanderings in this... awakens in my gut a general sense
> > > > > that bullshit is so easily related to so much around it, and is
> > > > > flagrant, while real, meaningful thought (even real meaningful action)
> > > > > tends to happen quietly "somewhere over there." Or, in the words of
> > > > > the great British philosopher Gordon Sumner, "men go crazy in
> > > > > congregations, they only get better one by one."
>
> > > > > Something here just seems slippery, creepy and unsupportable in a very
>
>
> read more »
γενβιρΟ
Oct 19, 2011, 7:06:49 AM10/19/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
>
> read more >>
γενβιρΟ
Oct 19, 2011, 7:47:44 AM10/19/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
Sky News
Occupy Wall Street 951 cities 82 countries October 15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ545L8w1wU&feature=related
On Oct 19, 10:06 pm, γενβιρΟ <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »
Occupy Wall Street 951 cities 82 countries October 15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ545L8w1wU&feature=related
On Oct 19, 10:06 pm, γενβιρΟ <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> read more »
γενβιρΟ
Oct 19, 2011, 8:15:08 AM10/19/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
If anyone has any problem with me posting on this topic, let me know.
Thanks.
> ...
>
> read more »
Thanks.
>
> read more »
γενβιρΟ
Nov 28, 2011, 11:03:07 PM11/28/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
The Venus Project-Occupy Miami-Nov.20, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5g449WbFcU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5g449WbFcU
> > > > > > > Now I'm not about toprojecton to you about how you should 'feel',
> ...
>
> read more »
Arky
Nov 29, 2011, 12:02:17 PM11/29/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
I have a problem with you posting on this topic. Too far-fielded and I
think we already have enough trouble catching intelligent posters.
think we already have enough trouble catching intelligent posters.
On Nov 28, 8:03 pm, γενβιρΟ <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Venus Project-Occupy Miami-Nov.20, 2011http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5g449WbFcU
> ...
>
> read more »
Message has been deleted
γενβιρΟ
Nov 29, 2011, 9:40:19 PM11/29/11
to Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence
On Nov 30, 1:37 pm, γενβιρΟ <carsthatdr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Although I think that intelligent people are more likely to show a
> less reflexive action to these sorts of posts, I can see your point
> and thus, it's better to _not_ test whether or not the dog will bite
> before we've even _fed_ it the information that it came for.
>
> Apart from this, do you think I could adjust the way I communicate in
> a way that better enables us to lure the dog into its cage? I think
> there's probably no doubt concerning this, considering the way I
> communicate is somewhat ambidextrous (multiple ways) and
> unpredictable, such is the case then that I'm no expert in
> communicating on one specific way.
>
> I get the feeling that I can be too sarcastic sometimes and too
> serious in other cases, thus I don't have a firm medium to which
> people can find predictability with how I post. People may think that
> such a thing is ridiculous, but I think that on a subconscious level,
> people tend to hold certain expectations good/bad with regards to
> people, and sometimes, if they are unable to make these sorts of
> predictions, distrust tends to form. Considering that the latter is
> completely irrational, I tend not to think this way, however it would
> be irrational for me to think that other people don't work this way.
>
> I'm open to any sort of response.
> ...
>
> read more »
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages