we're all doomed...

[Zooropa]

Aye, taz was just saying "this might not sit well - brace yourself".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist%2C_the_Movie

[psychodubmeiste]

Indeed, I believe it was, but he's so objective that the slightest mention of this sends him off in an unintelligible rant about how ignorant everyone else is apart from him.

don't shoot the messenger! if people are going to insult me for posting a video - albeit a controvertial one - obviously I'm going to get defensive and call people ignorant - because these people are saying these things without even watching the documentary..

[Posh]

Why am I the only conspiracy theorist with good social skills on the entire planet?

[Devastator]

Originally Posted by psychodubmeiste

don't shoot the messenger! if people are going to insult me for posting a video - albeit a controvertial one - obviously I'm going to get defensive and call people ignorant - because these people are saying these things without even watching the documentary..

Are you actually ignoring everyone pointing out that he wasn't insulting you? Aye?

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by psychodubmeiste

er.. no. The news. The papers.. the internet to find out what is going on in the world BEYOND what the previous two tell us.. books, and from talking to people about it. You really think I have only watched a couple of documentaries? HA!

We could all just assume you've read the Daily Star and the Very Hungry Gaiman...

it is a three part documentary which discusses the origins of religion and it's history, similarities in other religions, and their purpose. It also draws attention to the WTC attack, and previous 'terrorist' attacks throughout history, and the repercussions of those incidents. IE, history repeating itself.

The documentary also discusses war, particularly the first, second, vietnam and current 'War on Terror', and also, capitalism, monopolization, law legislation, and global government.

Clash of cultures? I would argue (in a quasi Foucaldian way) that the discourses we have to explain these things (which become these things) mean we are doomed to seeing history as repetitive.

[psychodubmeiste]

Clash of cultures? I would argue (in a quasi Foucaldian way) that the discourses we have to explain these things (which become these things) mean we are doomed to seeing history as repetitive.

yeah, but also that we are doomed TO repeat it. Either by instigation, or by ignorance.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by psychodubmeiste

yeah, but also that we are doomed TO repeat it. Either by instigation, or by ignorance.

Well I would argue we are doomed to repeat it because of human nature or alternatively because our means of social communication merely refines and gives us different ways of talking about things rather then different things to do.

IE. we are doomed to repeat history because we constantly strive to update and refine our understanding of history in line with modern varients of the given discourse. We may or may not actually be repeating the same mistakes...

[Dario]

Originally Posted by psychodubmeiste

er.. no. The news. The papers.. the internet to find out what is going on in the world BEYOND what the previous two tell us.. books, and from talking to people about it. You really think I have only watched a couple of documentaries? HA!

Yes. You've really proved me wrong. Books and hearsay as well as documentaries. My point was, you can hardly claim to be doing research on the subject when all you are doing is watching documentaries, or reading books about it, or listening to something someone else has told you, as this requires no actual investigative effort on your part in the slightest. I find it somewhat laughable that you actually believe it's such a great achievement on your part, when all you've done is merely stumble across this and post a thread about it.

However, I will comment on the actual documentary itself when I get around to watching it, but, judging by the descriptions so far, it doesn't look promising. I might touch on the 'history repeating itself' notion a bit later as well.

[psychodubmeiste]

this is an interesting view on the film http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0710/S00303.htm

[endless psych]

Hang on I spot Freemasonry in the tags! Your not Andymonk in disguise are you?

[psychodubmeiste]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Well I would argue we are doomed to repeat it because of human nature or alternatively because our means of social communication merely refines and gives us different ways of talking about things rather then different things to do.

IE. we are doomed to repeat history because we constantly strive to update and refine our understanding of history in line with modern varients of the given discourse. We may or may not actually be repeating the same mistakes...

I agree with you. But I think that it is a frightening possibility that we could further down the line.

Yes. You've really proved me wrong. Books and hearsay as well as documentaries. My point was, you can hardly claim to be doing research on the subject when all you are doing is watching documentaries, or reading books about it, or listening to something someone else has told you, as this requires no actual investigative effort on your part in the slightest. I find it somewhat laughable that you actually believe it's such a great achievement on your part, when all you've done is merely stumble across this and post a thread about it.

how else can you research something aside from reading, talking, searching and watching? Spying?

I don't consider this such a great achievement, I just want to talk about it.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by psychodubmeiste

I agree with you. But I think that it is a frightening possibility that we could further down the line.[

In actual real terms - history is impossible to repeat. In terms of language and explanation (perhaps even meaning) history can be repeated. I reckon that in cases of something truly 'original' or 'new' happening then because of the way language and understanding (might) work then we are doomed to see history repeating.

That is to say history repeats because the way we communicate prefers avoiding the creation of new words or concepts to explain events. IE. Me walking down the street and you walking down the street can both be explained and understood as either of us walking down the street. No new word or expression is needed - but this does not determine that there are fundamental differenes between the actual acts.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by endless psych

In actual real terms - history is impossible to repeat. In terms of language and explanation (perhaps even meaning) history can be repeated. I reckon that in cases of something truly 'original' or 'new' happening then because of the way language and understanding (might) work then we are doomed to see history repeating.

That is to say history repeats because the way we communicate prefers avoiding the creation of new words or concepts to explain events. IE. Me walking down the street and you walking down the street can both be explained and understood as either of us walking down the street. No new word or expression is needed - but this does not determine that there are fundamental differenes between the actual acts.

You might like The Random Postmodernism Essay Generator. Which, as the intuitive might suspect, generates PoMo essays Alan Sokal style.

[karbon14]

Originally Posted by psychodubmeiste

er.. no. The news. The papers.. the internet to find out what is going on ...

says in in the papers and on the internets, must be true.

well that's me sold. anyone else care to join me and the crazy?

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

You might like The Random Postmodernism Essay Generator. Which, as the intuitive might suspect, generates PoMo essays Alan Sokal style.

Positivists can be right arseholes. Its not our fault it peaked in the 50's!

That does amuse me but.