ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[thesyntaxera]

Furthermore, how many different ways can I explain the difference in how the night sky looks to the observer in different hemispheres of the world so that it is clearly understandable? What became defined as the Souther Cross looks one way during Winter Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere, and looks to set in a different place in the Southern Hemisphere. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp to anyone who gave even nominal research to the concepts of astronomy (not astrology). So, not only is the narration-- which I quoted directly-- incorrect in its assumption of causation because of incorrect dating for when the constellation became a defined astronomical entity, but also in the fallacy that almost all religions would have the same point of view of the astrological depiction given by the film.

What does this have to do with anything? We are talking about the same hemisphere during the same times of year. Not all developed theologies would have applied the same meanings to constellations if you believe that they all evolved independently of one another...which they didn't.

"Virgo" is a Greek name and not transferrable to all cultures and religions just because a film says so. Different civilizations saw different figures in the stars and constellations than the Greeks did. Many of the Greek associations, including the concept of Virgo, do not have equivalent mythological imagery in most other civilizations, including the Hebrews (and Jews), from which Christianity sprung.

Actually in terms of the zodiac and it's history...you are looking at this backwards. No one is applying greek terms to other cultures...the older previous cultures meanings have been carried on and evolved on their own. For instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac

The zodiac is the first known celestial coordinate system. There are two apparently independently created zodiacs. Babylonian astrology, inherited by Hellenistic and Indian astrology, developed the zodiac of twelve signs familiar in the West. In Chinese astrology, months and years pass through a cycle of twelve animals that imply certain fortunes or misfortunes related to events occurring within those signs. The Chinese zodiac is not linked to constellations, however.

By 2,000 BC, the Egyptians and Mesopotamians marked the seasons by the constellations we now call Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, and Aquarius. However, the marking of seasons by constellations may go back to 5,000 BC.[1] The division of the ecliptic into the zodiacal signs originates perhaps in Babylonian ("Chaldean") astronomy as early as the 1st millennium BC (likely during Median/"Neo-Babylonian" times) (Powell 2004).

Does that make sense...?? There are other correlations too...for instance, in the Egyptian zodiac the sign of capricorn is Amun-Ra, and as we know Amun-Ra was the sun god in their mythology...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun-Ra#Sun_God

As Amun's cult grew bigger, Amun rapidly became identified with the chief God that was worshipped in other areas, Ra-Herakhty, the merged identities of Ra, and Horus. This identification led to a merger of identities, with Amun becoming Amun-Ra. As Ra had been the father of Shu, and Tefnut, and the remainder of the Ennead, so Amun-Ra was likewise identified as their father.

Ra-Herakhty had been a sun god, and so this became true of Amun-Ra as well, Amun becoming considered the hidden aspect of the sun (e.g. during the night), in contrast to Ra-Herakhty as the visible aspect, since Amun clearly meant the one who is hidden. This complexity over the sun led to a gradual movement towards the support of a more pure form of deity.

Capricorn happens to be the sign during which the supposed birth of the Sun takes place.

they expect the viewer (through guided narration) to make the mental connection without any archaeological, historical, or cultural evidence to back it up

Thats because it's an internet movie. There is plenty of evidence to "back it up" as you say, it was just left out of the film for reasons of brevity perhaps.

You see, I don't have to prove that the claims in Zeitgeist were 'untrue', I simply have to point out the lack of actual connections that they are attempting to make. The claim that "the Sun(son) dying and being reborn in Virgo(virgin birth)" is incorrect because it assumes points of reference that are only recorded as present in two cultural civilizations (Greeks and Romans), while the rest of the world called the same stuff by different names and imagery.

If you were actually trying to do research into these connections instead of only trying to prove they don't exist...which you haven't done...then maybe what you are saying here would have some weight...as it stands I have already answered your claims of non-connection by demonstrating that through historical evolution there is a connection(see above).

 

[GreNME]

Oh. Well, I thought I was relating exactly that! There are degrees of separation in the relative subjectivity of data. it is not an "all or nothing" thing. It is not that this piece of data is absolutely subjective and this one absolutely objective. It is more shades of grey.

Some things are more grey than others.

Yes, and this is all great. But it is important not to get lost here. Works that derive from new hypotheses or unstudied hypotheses may inevitably take longer to get established in the absence of empiric study, but this does not mean, of itself, that they are any less valid.

Yes, it in fact does mean exactly that. This is one of the rigors of scientific method that hypotheses must pass in order to have validity. That is how science works. If the hypothesis can hold its own weight, then it should be able to endure. The curvature of the planet, the orbit of the Moon, the shape of the Earth: all of these things were hypothesized hundreds of years before they achieved any notable validity. They're pretty much considered a given these days, and there is no logical reason whatsoever to consider a flat-earther's argument (yes, they exist) as being valid compared to the long history of data supporting the current scientific establishments on the size, shape, and orbit of the Earth.

That something is considered "reputable" does not make an meaningful statement about its validity. It is hearsay.

To you, maybe. "Reputable" in the academic sense is synonymous with "valid," in that it is a criteria that can be viewed as within the levels of reason to examine and consider.

Citations merely establish whether or not a subject has previously been researched or studied, or whether it has been previously studied in a like manner. They make absolutely no statement, of themselves, as to the veracity of the work, or the hypotheses contained within.

If you cannot see the value of including citations when making a hypothesis that challenges a conventional rational model, then why have you bothered thus far to make mention of supporting literature to your own statements previously? If citation is unnecessary, why did you use it?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

This film has Mr les in it, 'refuting' the official story.

Proof enough this is as rubbish as loose change,

 

[GreNME]

What does this have to do with anything? We are talking about the same hemisphere during the same times of year. Not all developed theologies would have applied the same meanings to constellations if you believe that they all evolved independently of one another...which they didn't.

You need to watch the movie again. Or do you really need me to quote for you verbatim how many times the movie applies this to religions that do not share geographical proximity?

From the film: “There are saviors from all over the world which subscribe to these general characteristics.”

Actually in terms of the zodiac and it's history...you are looking at this backwards. No one is applying greek terms to other cultures...the older previous cultures meanings have been carried on and evolved on their own. For instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac

[cherry-picked quote]

[cherry-picked quote]

Some stuff thesytaxera must have accidentally left out in the quotes of the link:

The shape of the constellations themselves were probably not the main factor, as most of them bear little or no resemblance to the mythical characters after which they are named. Their origins are more likely to be in the belief of early peoples that events on earth were mirrored in the heavens above them. It followed then, that important mythical beings in the earth's affairs must have a matching image in the sky. Therefore over time a process probably developed whereby various important archetypal characters in ancient myth were linked to the sky by the 'discovery' of a pattern of stars (or 'constellation') in their image.

In other words, exactly the opposite order of what the film Zeitgeist claims.

The original Babylonian zodiac consisted of eighteen signs [2] ; however the twelve sign zodiac developed later on to become the permanent form, probably as twelve was the number of months in the Babylonian year. The present day names of the Western constellations and signs of the zodiac were first described by the Greek astronomer and astrologer Ptolemy who lived between 120-180 AD. The following are the twelve constellations with their Latin names which gave their names to the zodiac signs, which are still used by astronomers today

Well, look at that. The Zodiac as we know it today didn't happen until over a hundred years into the Common Era.

But, but, what about the positions of the signs as referenced by the constellations, you ask?

The signs of the zodiac do not necessarily coincide with the actual constellations for which they are named. Because of the division of the zodiac into 12 signs of 30° each; due to various specifications for the boundaries of the constellations; and especially due to the precession of the equinoxes for the tropical system of coordinates, the constellations should not be confused with zodiac signs. As described above, due to precession the tropical signs have moved away from their corresponding constellations, so that today, the beginning of the tropical sign of Aries (defined as the position of the Sun on the vernal equinox) lies somewhere within the constellation Pisces.

Oh no! So if the actual constellations are not quite in sync with the zodiac, then wouldn't that mean the actual positions of the constellations would not exactly coincide with the zodiac, thus making the Zeitgeist film seem even less thoroughly researched? Surely, there must be some ancient evidence that tied our constellations to the seasons of the Earth, no?

It is not entirely clear how ancient astronomers responded to this phenomenon of precession once they discovered it. Today, some read Ptolemy as dropping the concept of a fixed celestial sphere and adopting what is referred to as a tropical coordinate system instead: in other words, one fixed to the cycle of the Earth's seasonal cycle rather than its orbital cycle.

It is believed many of the classical astronomers specified zodiac signs using two bright stars near the ecliptic and opposite each other to serve as equatorial nodes or poles (not longitudinal poles): Aldebaran and Antares in the constellations Taurus and Scorpius respectively.

Basically, using only the information from the link thesyntaxera provided, it looks pretty clear that the model for not only the map of the zodiac but the precession as it is charted today doesn't as closely resemble the constellations that were viewed by various civilizations in the ancient world. In fact, from that same link it seems the most popular conclusion as to the naming of constellations in relation to civilizations' mythologies is that the civilizations separately used names to correspond with their individual mythologies, not building their mythologies to correspond with the constellations.

In otherwords, Zeitgeist got it wrong because the film got everything backwards.

Does that make sense...?? There are other correlations too...for instance, in the Egyptian zodiac the sign of capricorn is Amun-Ra, and as we know Amun-Ra was the sun god in their mythology...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amun-Ra#Sun_God

[cherry-picked quote]

First, you linked to only Amun, while Ra existed in several forms througout Egyptian mythology. Second, you only quoted one form in which Ra appeared in Egyptian mythology, and completely ignored the others (why?). Third, don't seem to even bother regarding the very next paragraph in order to gain some context:

During the eighteenth dynasty, the pharaoh Akhenaten (also known as Amenhotep IV) introduced the worship of the Aten, a god whose power was manifested both literally and symbolically in the sun's disc. He defaced the symbols of the old gods and based his new religion upon one new god: the Aten. However, this abrupt change was very unpopular, particularly with the previous temple priests, who now found themselves without any of their former power. Consequently, when Akhenaten died, his name was striken from the Egyptian records, and all of his changes were swiftly undone. It was almost as if this monotheistic sect had never occurred. Worship of the Aten was replaced and worship of Amun-Ra was restored. The priests persuaded the new underage pharaoh Tutankhaten, whose name meant "the living image of Aten", to change his name to Tutankhamun, "the living image of Amun".

Basically, Egyptian mythology was often directly tied to the pharaoh of the time. In fact, if you look at the list of pharaohs throughout the dynasties, you start seeing the names (or parts of names) of gods within the names of the pharaohs: Ramesses, Tutankhamun, Amenhotep, Horaha, Mentuhotep, and so on. Gee, no wonder the mythologies kept changing. It's a wonder that the film never bothers to let the viewer in on this rather significant piece of information.

Capricorn happens to be the sign during which the supposed birth of the Sun takes place.

Is that your way of admitting that you (and Zeitgeist) are wrong regarding the claims about the Southern Cross? Considering the Southern Cross is not in the constellation Capricorn, you should be admitting such.

=Thats because it's an internet movie. There is plenty of evidence to "back it up" as you say, it was just left out of the film for reasons of brevity perhaps.

Or perhaps it was due to ignorance and hyperbole in the face of lack of research on their part.

If you were actually trying to do research into these connections instead of only trying to prove they don't exist...which you haven't done...then maybe what you are saying here would have some weight...as it stands I have already answered your claims of non-connection by demonstrating that through historical evolution there is a connection(see above).

You really do not understand a simple concept that I have pointed out repeatedly: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. The problem with the incorrect nature of the claims in Zeitgeist have to do with the constant conclusion that there is causation where there is none. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of places that the film could have gone that would have been based on actual historical and archaeological research that would have been less wild speculation and more based in fact. But they didn't go there. They even came close enough on several occasions that I actually expected them to go there, but they didn't. The film repeatedly comes very close to making a clear and supportable point, and then shoots off into left field somewhere by mentioning exactly the wrong thing.

Some examples:

1. Moses - What happened to Sargon? The comparison was standing right there in the faces of everyone, including the narrator, and the film just scoots right on past him with less than 20 seconds of exposure and goes on to try to connect Moses to Menes from Egypt and Manu from India. He was right there!
2. Akhenaten - Without a doubt the number one, absolutely positive, sure-thing bet for someone who is doing a comparative religious study between Egypt and Judaism / Christianity would be with Akhenaten. This is the pharaoh who brought the first verifiably recorded evidence of a monotheistic religion in that whole region (from North Africa up to the Mediterranian). Even most of the scholars who reference Egypt as a major influence on Christianity use Akhenaten as their primary example! Why no mention of the obvious?
3. Babylon - The Jews didn't get their calendar and their constellation symbols from the Greeks, they got them from Babylon. Babylon. Where the heck was Babylon in this whole film?
4. Mithra - Get off the whole Jesus comparison attempts! The existing mythology surrounding Mithra tends to be more relationally comparable to stories involving Abraham, Moses, and David.
5. Rome - I couldn't believe how little attention the film and narrator gave to Rome as a major influence on the formation of Christian theology in the liturgical sense. Sure, quoting Justin Martyr is all well and good, except they missed the context and Martyr had less of a contribution in merging Roman practices than, say Ireneaus, Ignatius, or (most of all)Constantine. Any of those alternatives would have been better examples. Information like the establishment of Christian churches in conjunction with Roman political governing buildings, and how the church simply had to step into an administrative role after the crumbling of Rome as an empire happened would have seemed to me to be directly in line with the case they were trying to make. That and things like it never appeared on the screen, though-- just a couple of weak quotes from Martyr.

You see, thesyntaxera, you're coming at me all wrong. I'm not trying to disprove or prove the validity of any religion, nor am I trying to play the "prove a negative" game you seem to want me to try to play regarding the film. It's not that things the narrator was pointing out did not exist, it is that that whole entire section of the film gets every last piece of real data that it uses either out of order, out of context, incorrectly spelled, mis-applied, mis-quoted, or completely backwards.

In other words, it's a pretty good example of knowing just enough to be dangerous but not enough to be useful.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Or do you really need me to quote for you verbatim how many times the movie applies this to religions that do not share geographical proximity?

From the film: “There are saviors from all over the world which subscribe to these general characteristics"

Well first off, all of the religions in question do exist in the same hemisphere in close(relatively speaking) proximity to each other. Perhaps all the narrator meant by "all over the world" is that there are many instances in many places, and made the mistake of writing into the script "all over the world"...you are assuming they are applying it to religions "all over the world" when they never talk about anything but mediterranean religions/mystery schools.

The shape of the constellations themselves were probably not the main factor, as most of them bear little or no resemblance to the mythical characters after which they are named. Their origins are more likely to be in the belief of early peoples that events on earth were mirrored in the heavens above them. It followed then, that important mythical beings in the earth's affairs must have a matching image in the sky. Therefore over time a process probably developed whereby various important archetypal characters in ancient myth were linked to the sky by the 'discovery' of a pattern of stars (or 'constellation') in their image.

This is exactly what they claim actually. I think there is even a part where they mention how the zodiac was created to act as a calender, with the characters in it symbolizing the different times of year.

Well, look at that. The Zodiac as we know it today didn't happen until over a hundred years into the Common Era.

But, but, what about the positions of the signs as referenced by the constellations, you ask?

Actually the zodiac has been evolving since the babylonian times...are you trying to suggest the Ptolemy invented a whole new one? Doubtfull. I would imagine that most of the symbolic meaning was transposed by Ptolemy...in fact I would bet good money on it.

Basically, using only the information from the link thesyntaxera provided, it looks pretty clear that the model for not only the map of the zodiac but the precession as it is charted today doesn't as closely resemble the constellations that were viewed by various civilizations in the ancient world. In fact, from that same link it seems the most popular conclusion as to the naming of constellations in relation to civilizations' mythologies is that the civilizations separately used names to correspond with their individual mythologies, not building their mythologies to correspond with the constellations.

I don't know how you came to this conclusion, because according to the same links you site...in fact the same quote, it sounds as though they did correspond until ptolemy decided to shrink the zodiac. Your totally misreading this information from the looks of it.

Is that your way of admitting that you (and Zeitgeist) are wrong regarding the claims about the Southern Cross? Considering the Southern Cross is not in the constellation Capricorn, you should be admitting such.

I never said I agreed with the film about the cross...as well this and several previous answers are a good indicator as to how close you are reading the information provided...because I referenced capricorn as being a correlation with egyptian zodiac. To repeat myself capricorn occurs during the time period that the whole death/rebirth myth is supposed to occur, and since Amon-Ra is the SUN god and since we are talking about the metaphoric death of the SUN I thought it might be relevant to point out.

You really do not understand a simple concept that I have pointed out repeatedly: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.

No it's sure doesn't it just implies a possible correlation...Causation was initiated apparently back in Babylon and the ripple effect is seen through out history in the symbology, mythologies, and religions. I just can't understand how you keep stumbling over this.

 

[thesyntaxera]

It's not that things the narrator was pointing out did not exist, it is that that whole entire section of the film gets every last piece of real data that it uses either out of order, out of context, incorrectly spelled, mis-applied, mis-quoted, or completely backwards.

Coming from some one who has spent a minute or two looking into astrotheology, I would agree to a point. In the end it's still just an internet movie that is barely making a ripple in the collective human consciousness, so I fail to see how it requires a crusade like endeavor to debunk it. Horus is a death/rebirth deity...the zodiac does have correlations to seasons and celestial events as described for the most part particularly the sun death myth as well as different mythologies, 9/11 was used by the government to sell an idea to the american people, and the Fed reserve is kind of shady depending on your political persuasion. I wouldn't go so far as interpret the film as factual 100%, but then again that wasn't the point of the film...the point was to suggest, as they state at the end, that there has been a zeigeist sold over and over in order to affect the the masses in certain ways to the betterment of the power brokers of the day, and to make those viewing question the institutions that they take for granted....hence the title zeitgeist...

 

[GreNME]

Coming from some one who has spent a minute or two looking into astrotheology, I would agree to a point.

Then you should look for a little longer than a few minutes, because you'd agree even more.

In the end it's still just an internet movie that is barely making a ripple in the collective human consciousness, so I fail to see how it requires a crusade like endeavor to debunk it.

Why are you putting in as much effort making excuses for it if it doesn't matter?

Horus is a death/rebirth deity...

No he isn't. Osiris is the death/rebirth deity in Egyptian mythology.

the zodiac does have correlations to seasons and celestial events as described for the most part particularly the sun death myth as well as different mythologies,

You need to re-read the link you provided. The zodiac does not correspond to the actual positions of the constellations, and the syncronization of the zodiac to the seasons was not performed until well after Christianity began. This is confirmed in the very same link you provided, so I don't see why you are even attempting to claim otherwise.

9/11 was used by the government to sell an idea to the american people,

Speculation. More likely, based on the history of American politics in general, the government didn't so much use the event to sell an idea as it attached a bunch of bad ideas on to its reactions to the attack, much like pork barrel legislation happens in Congress. Remember, "never attribute malice to what can easier be atributed to stupidity." The film implies malice and repeats some outlandish and unreal claims regarding the events themselves, not even counting the government's response.

and the Fed reserve is kind of shady depending on your political persuasion.

Oh baloney. The Fed is mysterious and seemingly clandestine to people who have never bothered to actually perform a little bit of study on how the economy works, and is called evil by people who oppose a fiat monetary system.

I wouldn't go so far as interpret the film as factual 100%, but then again that wasn't the point of the film...the point was to suggest, as they state at the end, that there has been a zeigeist sold over and over in order to affect the the masses in certain ways to the betterment of the power brokers of the day, and to make those viewing question the institutions that they take for granted....hence the title zeitgeist...

Then why all the attribution of malicious intent throughout the film? Why all the implications of conspiracy when a cogent case claiming distrust and against policy would have been presented better? Why does the narrator continuously present his "data" as if they were fact? The film was nothing better than hyped misinformation to further distort gullible people's impression of how the world around them works, and is filled with conspiracy theorist propaganda. The film does no better a job at raising questions as a dog does trying to catch its tail. Even Michael Moore, who is a horrible producer of issues and an opportunist in the highest degree, does a better job of making a point than the makers of this film.

It gets old seeing the same bad data repeated as if the repetition might someday make it fact, and it is downright dangerous to see so many similar arguments to old white power and anti-semite talking points being used in the justifications. That is why speaking out against such productions is done. It is exactly the opposite of constructive or critical thinking, and is in many cases destructive. It doesn't make me angry, it makes me worry and it causes me to be a little bit scared that such ideas take hold in the minds of people who are generally decent folk. It's at least as disheartening as listening to folks who think Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are at least partially 'right' when they pontificate and spew their hatred.

I hope you are correct about this film and that it is barely a ripple in the public consciousness. It would be sad to see a reversion to thinking in the country, which is exactly where these conspiracy groups with roots in 'constitutionalism' (narrowly defined by their own rules) wish it to go.

 

[Nick227]

Nick, the reason I did not and will not go into too deep a discussion with you on this is because it has very little bearing on the discussion at hand. Basically, if you wanted to take that philosophical route, then pretty much everything can be reduced to the equivalent of being figments of your imagination, and thus having no impact to you outside of what you wish to allow.

Yes, I agree. There are those who, when cornered, will try to drive the debate into these core existential areas rather as though they were using some kind of "get out of jail free card." I have done such things in the past, unconsciously, but it is not my intention to do so here.

The reason why I did mention it was because there is a level on which it does, imo, have a bearing here on this discussion about Zeitgeist the Movie. The experience of undertaking self-enquiry and the experience of watching conspiracy movies both involve coming to grips with the possibility that much of what one previously believed about the world and oneself may be quite false. There is usually fear, and quite a lot of it. The difference is that most people involved in self-enquiry are doing it through personal choice, whereas reading or watching a conspiracy theory, one can find oneself being drawn in exactly the same direction, but without much knowledge aforehand that this was where things were going.

To skip to the chase, the fear reactions are same. The scrambling and holding onto whatever belief systems might offer support are the same. The search for defensive positions are the same.

It is not so much important as to whether the scenario portrayed in the movie is true or not, rather that it has the possibility to convince the individual in the moment, before the critical facilities of the mind come in.

What I find most interesting about the discussion you want to have, Nick, is that it seems to imply you are absolutist in nature despite your framing of concepts in what could be mistaken for a relativistic model. It is lacking in nuance, and a philosophical model existing only or priori data as you are suggesting sets up the target of your discussion up for existing only within a tautological environment.

I have chosen to not go into too much of a discussion with you on the subject in order to keep the conversation civil. I know you certainly would not want to be accused of being dismissive of others because you refuse to acknowledge their assertation of existence based on your self-created model. Whether I personally exist or not has no bearing on the subject matter which is being discussed in this thread, and is thus irrelevant to the conversation. The only manner in which I can see it being used would qualify as personal commentary that may constitute an attack, and I think we can both agree there is no need for any such thing.

I have no intention to attack you.

I've already pointed out that I have no desire to argue for or against any individual's faith in any religion or mysticism. There is no need to prove or disprove such a thing within the scope of the discussion on the Zeitgeist film. There is no need to prove or disprove my existence, my depth of qualia, priori, or anything else within the scope of the discussion of the Zeitgeist film. Most of all, though, there is a personal nature to the discussion you wish to have that, despite you seeming a nice enough individual, I have no desire nor reason to share with you within the scope of the topic at hand.

In other words: you seem a nice fellow, but I'm just into you that way, baby.

That's all cool

Nick

 

[GreNME]

That's fair enough, Nick. All I can say in response is that I'm definitely not simply clinging to old beliefs. If anything, I tend to harbor a heavy distrust for quite a few public officials in more than one political party. I have no problem pointing out where they are either performing outright unreasonable activities or just saying what sounds good for reporters to allow themselves to seem like "good people." I also know that politics isn't very simple, though, not unlike any large bureaucracy. Bad behavior in certain areas does not mean a systematic breakdown of the whole structure.

The sad reality that exists and happens to feed most discontent-- both for conspiracists and for anyone else-- is that very affluent people tend to remain affluent and want to remain that way, very poor people want to not be so but often don't have the tools to change that situation, and everyone else in-between mainly focuses on keeping themselves above the proverbial water and wants to have a "decent life." In a lot of ways, it is very much like the metaphorical rat-race, and that can be a cause of discontent for anyone who feels they work very hard in their life.

 

[T.A.M.]

exestential is a good word for it...lol

As far as proof of ones own existence, I would suggest turning to your neighbour, and asking him if you exist. If turns to you, sees you, and answers your question positively, you have your answer...lol

TAM

 

[Nick227]

exestential is a good word for it...lol

As far as proof of ones own existence, I would suggest turning to your neighbour, and asking him if you exist. If turns to you, sees you, and answers your question positively, you have your answer...lol

TAM

Well, it's a bit OT, but just to make it clear...it is not like "how can you be sure you exist?" or "can you be sure this computer screen is real?" - these kind of questions. This is not what I was writing about.

Rather, how do you know the thoughts currently passing through your mind are yours? They are passing through, for sure. They exist. But how do you know they have ownership? Can you prove it? Likewise feelings, likewise the body. It all exists, that's a priori. But what evidence do you have that they are yours?

Because...if you can't prove limited selfhood, as in "I am this body" or "I am these thoughts", or "this body is mine" or "these thoughts are mine," which as far as I'm aware no one has managed to do, it gets tougher to create objective formulations about the world. Not impossible though.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

My self and my thoughts exist in a quantum state in which they both exist and don't exist until the point and time they are observed.

 

[calebprime]

Well, it's a bit OT, but just to make it clear...it is not like "how can you be sure you exist?" or "can you be sure this computer screen is real?" - these kind of questions. This is not what I was writing about.

Rather, how do you know the thoughts currently passing through your mind are yours? They are passing through, for sure. They exist. But how do you know they have ownership? Can you prove it? Likewise feelings, likewise the body. It all exists, that's a priori. But what evidence do you have that they are yours?

Because...if you can't prove limited selfhood, as in "I am this body" or "I am these thoughts", or "this body is mine" or "these thoughts are mine," which as far as I'm aware no one has managed to do, it gets tougher to create objective formulations about the world. Not impossible though.

Nick

What are you really committing to when you assert limited selfhood?

What grounds or methods do you have to doubt limited selfhood that are more compelling than simply believing it?

To read you literally--if no one has managed to do something, then how does it "get tougher" to do it, and how is it possible?

Are you British?

 

[GreNME]

What are you really committing to when you assert limited selfhood?

What grounds or methods do you have to doubt limited selfhood that are more compelling than simply believing it?

To read you literally--if no one has managed to do something, then how does it "get tougher" to do it, and how is it possible?

Are you British?

Nick was, in a roundabout way, proposing that I check what I am saying to examine whether I think it because of deduction and critical thinking, or because it has been repeated to me over and over.

I don't think he wanted or was prepared to go too far into existentialism, which is why I basically didn't want to follow that line of discourse. It would have, in my opinion, instead gotten into too personal a subject for one of us or someone else. Not necessary for the scope of the thread. He kindly clarified and accepted the point in the discussion where I stated I could go no further. I don't think he meant what he said in anything but a benevolent way.

 

[Nick227]

What are you really committing to when you assert limited selfhood?

Well, for most people it's saying this body is mine. This is me, this is my space.

What grounds or methods do you have to doubt limited selfhood that are more compelling than simply believing it?

It's not really about believing or not. We were discussing objectivity and empiric method. The idea is that you test beliefs, see if there is evidence to demonstrate they are true.

To read you literally--if no one has managed to do something, then how does it "get tougher" to do it, and how is it possible?

Well, I'd say the main reason it gets tougher is that it's a lot easier to get things done if people believe that they have a personal identity. It certainly motivates me. I can hardly imagine all those scientists studying the universe if they believed they would get nothing out of it. It's still possible to study things without the existence, or belief in the existence, of a limited observer. Measurement is still OK, I can't see any reason why not. To be honest, I've only thought about these aspects of identification for the last couple days so I haven't formulated much opinion.

Are you British?

Yes, in nationality. Anglo-Iranian biologically.

Please note that I'm not really seeking some like meaningful discussion on identification with the body, or all sorts of ahem "exciting" questions like "why do you post things if there is no you, etc etc?" I think the ego is cool. It's just that I'm also aware that it's not the only game in town.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Coming from some one who has spent a minute or two looking into astrotheology, I would agree to a point. In the end it's still just an internet movie that is barely making a ripple in the collective human consciousness, so I fail to see how it requires a crusade like endeavor to debunk it.

Well, I think the movie is doing more than "ripple" business. It's nearly up to 3 million views on Google Video, which is more than 1 million a month, and who knows how many it's picked up on the maker's site + the other places its up? It's also out on DVD now.

The thing is, Zeitgeist is an idea who's time has come. Whether you believe in 100th Monkey theory, or whatever, the reality is that the public thirst for objective scrutiny has been so destroyed by the mass media that they will believe this....for the simple reason that it feels right. Just watch.

I mean, the whole 9-11 episode does look incredibly suspect. Whatever the truth of the matter, it looks suspicious as hell. It's just made for conspiracy theorists. I was reading and writing conspiracy stuff 8 years ago and, frankly, it was a bloody nightmare trying to convince anyone who wasn't borderline insane it was true. But now, with 9-11 sitting there in our history books, people are really up for it.

About Christianity, who really knows? It's so far in the past, it's all effectively mythology. You present something effectively, people believe it. Facts don't convince people, presentation does.

Zeitgeist is an idea who's time has come. The banks have been duped into financing and building the prototype for a truly wonderful, liberating global culture, and now most of the hard work's done, it's time to chop them out of the picture. It's going to happen. Watch.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

Great post, Nick.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Then you should look for a little longer than a few minutes, because you'd agree even more.

I guess I should have said multiple years...sorry my mistake.

Why are you putting in as much effort making excuses for it if it doesn't matter?

I am not making excuses for anything, I just think it is silly to worry so much about things like this. It would seem that every time there is a consensus reality challenging item such as this film, these forums erupt into fervor over it. And to what end?

No he isn't. Osiris is the death/rebirth deity in Egyptian mythology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

The myth described Osiris as having been killed by his brother Seth who wanted Osiris' throne. Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died. Isis later gave birth to Horus. As such, since Horus was born after Osiris' resurrection, Horus became thought of as representing new beginnings. This combination, Osiris-Horus, was therefore a life-death-rebirth deity, and thus associated with the new harvest each year.

You need to re-read the link you provided. The zodiac does not correspond to the actual positions of the constellations, and the syncronization of the zodiac to the seasons was not performed until well after Christianity began. This is confirmed in the very same link you provided, so I don't see why you are even attempting to claim otherwise.

Because your wrong....the whole purpose of being an astrologer is to predict events on earth based on the the events above...IE "As above so below"...
for an example of correspondance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_astrology

Virgo the virgin is quite likely to have originated with the Egyptian grain goddess Nidaba, as in Egypt the harvest began when the full moon was in Virgo. In Babylon the equivalent constellation was called the Great Mother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_astrology#The_Nile

Astrology in Egypt was dominated by the combination of the sun and the dog-star Sirius, as they foretold when in the year the great river Nile would flood. It was believed that the concerted action of the sun and Sirius together would bring the floods, upon which the whole of Egyptian civilization depended, bringing fertility and life to what would otherwise be barren desert.

Since we are talking about myth, we are talking about what it was believed to do, not what it does in reality...

Speculation. More likely, based on the history of American politics in general, the government didn't so much use the event to sell an idea as it attached a bunch of bad ideas on to its reactions to the attack, much like pork barrel legislation happens in Congress

Speculation maybe...no they didn't use the event to sell us going to war in Iraq, no they didn't use the the event to sell the patriot act to the american people....it wasn't selling it was "attaching" bad idea's....riiiight.

Oh baloney. The Fed is mysterious and seemingly clandestine to people who have never bothered to actually perform a little bit of study on how the economy works, and is called evil by people who oppose a fiat monetary system.

So... exactly what I said basically.

Then why all the attribution of malicious intent throughout the film? Why all the implications of conspiracy when a cogent case claiming distrust and against policy would have been presented better? Why does the narrator continuously present his "data" as if they were fact? The film was nothing better than hyped misinformation to further distort gullible people's impression of how the world around them works, and is filled with conspiracy theorist propaganda.

Are you really so cynical that you think an internet movie is going to sway the opinions of the popular culture so much as to ruin anything?

It gets old seeing the same bad data repeated as if the repetition might someday make it fact, and it is downright dangerous to see so many similar arguments to old white power and anti-semite talking points being used in the justifications.

Is that what you took away from it...white power/anti-semite rhetoric? I must not have been watching to closely. Dangerous? Wow. What an awful world we live in where some one can make an internet movie and be considered an enemy of the state.

That is why speaking out against such productions is done. It is exactly the opposite of constructive or critical thinking, and is in many cases destructive. It doesn't make me angry, it makes me worry and it causes me to be a little bit scared that such ideas take hold in the minds of people who are generally decent folk. It's at least as disheartening as listening to folks who think Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are at least partially 'right' when they pontificate and spew their hatred.

Name one instance where some one having a different opinion in this limited context(please spare the hitler comparisons) has been destructive? People have a right to think whatever they want about whatever they want...it's called cognitive liberty. I don't agree with the claims of the film, and I sure as hell am disgusted by O'reilly and Coulter...but they are entitled to their skewed opinions like anyone else.

I hope you are correct about this film and that it is barely a ripple in the public consciousness. It would be sad to see a reversion to thinking in the country, which is exactly where these conspiracy groups with roots in 'constitutionalism' (narrowly defined by their own rules) wish it to go.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Considering that there is over a billion internet users(232million in north america), how can you possibly think that this film being viewed(and probably forgotten) by nearly 3 million people is going to have any impact whatsoever?

 

[GreNME]

I'll get to the rest of the flaws in your post later, but

Name one instance where some one having a different opinion in this limited context(please spare the hitler comparisons) has been destructive? People have a right to think whatever they want about whatever they want...it's called cognitive liberty. I don't agree with the claims of the film, and I sure as hell am disgusted by O'reilly and Coulter...but they are entitled to their skewed opinions like anyone else.

Actually, views like those espoused by O'Reilly and Coulter are a good example. The instance where views like theirs have proven destructive: the war in Iraq. Their veiws were so utterly convinced that there were weapons over there that they would publicly berate opinions that disagreed. Called them unpatriotic. Eventually we got into a war that has now caused the deaths of more Americans than 9/11 did, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and four-and-a-half years on with the 'rebuilt' government breaking apart because they can't get along. Yeah, I'd consider that pretty destructive.

If you want a more historical example: go look up McCarthyism, the Red Scare, or immigration problems in the early 20th century. Some pretty messed up stuff happened during each of those times, all based on assumptions people made from bad information and unnecessary fear-mongering. If you'd like, I can go even further and count stuff outside of America and going further back in history. There are dozens of obvious examples, and hundreds and hundreds of examples that still receive loads of examination by historians to this day. I can give you some books you can check out if you want some resources other than a guy who disagrees with you on an internet forum. Your "cognitive liberty" and all that aside, the number of examples where misinformation and fear-mongering have led to damaging results are staggering.

I thought you said you had a good understanding of history.

 

[GreNME]

I guess I should have said multiple years...sorry my mistake.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you how long you claim to have studied stuff. All I'm telling you is that you're wrong on a lot of things, as I have been showing you with your own provided links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris

The myth described Osiris as having been killed by his brother Seth who wanted Osiris' throne. Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died. Isis later gave birth to Horus. As such, since Horus was born after Osiris' resurrection, Horus became thought of as representing new beginnings. This combination, Osiris-Horus, was therefore a life-death-rebirth deity, and thus associated with the new harvest each year.

What part of "this combination, Osiris-Horus" was amiguous to you? The fact is that Osiris is the one who died and came back to life. There is absolutely no way for you to claim otherwise. Can you honestly not just admit you are incorrect and move on?

You need to re-read the link you provided. The zodiac does not correspond to the actual positions of the constellations, and the syncronization of the zodiac to the seasons was not performed until well after Christianity began. This is confirmed in the very same link you provided, so I don't see why you are even attempting to claim otherwise.

Because your wrong....the whole purpose of being an astrologer is to predict events on earth based on the the events above...IE "As above so below"...

Are you just deliberately obtuse or something? Are you really claiming that the astrological zodiac signs line up directly with the astronomical constellations, even though your own link in the previous reply to you states unequivocably that they do not? Dude, you're the one using Wikipedia as your primary source material, you should really be reading the whole articles you are pointing to. Here, let me refresh your memory:

The signs of the zodiac do not necessarily coincide with the actual constellations for which they are named. Because of the division of the zodiac into 12 signs of 30° each; due to various specifications for the boundaries of the constellations; and especially due to the precession of the equinoxes for the tropical system of coordinates, the constellations should not be confused with zodiac signs. As described above, due to precession the tropical signs have moved away from their corresponding constellations, so that today, the beginning of the tropical sign of Aries (defined as the position of the Sun on the vernal equinox) lies somewhere within the constellation Pisces.

What part of that description is ambiguous to you? What part do you not understand? You have studied these things for years, so explain exactly why you believe otherwise in your own words so that the rest of the class can understand exactly what you are attempting to say. So far, your very own citations are giving contradictory information to what you claim.

for an example of correspondance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_astrology

Virgo the virgin is quite likely to have originated with the Egyptian grain goddess Nidaba, as in Egypt the harvest began when the full moon was in Virgo. In Babylon the equivalent constellation was called the Great Mother.

What does this prove? Different civilizations had different names for the same constellation, and only one of them (Virgo) was a virgin. Please don't tell me you are now going to try to argue that a fertility goddes from Egypt and Tiamat from Babylon were virgins. You're going to need a whole lot more than a non-contextual sentence cherry-picked from a Wikipedia article that contradicts you as a source, my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_astrology#The_Nile

Astrology in Egypt was dominated by the combination of the sun and the dog-star Sirius, as they foretold when in the year the great river Nile would flood. It was believed that the concerted action of the sun and Sirius together would bring the floods, upon which the whole of Egyptian civilization depended, bringing fertility and life to what would otherwise be barren desert.

Since we are talking about myth, we are talking about what it was believed to do, not what it does in reality...

What you mean is that myth is allegorical. Do you realize what the allegory for "fertile" meant in Egyptian (and almost every other) myth? Here's a hint: it was the exact opposite of "virgin" and most definitely isn't a sign of chastity.


I'm sorry, but your attempts to interpret things in your own special way by grabbing one or two sentences without the context in the rest of the articles is displaying your ignorance to the subjects even more than your over-use of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia site is nice, but only has brief summaries of the subject matter, and even then you are misquoting them in the attempt to pretend it says what it is not saying. Basically, the assertion that Judaism and Christianity are based from an Egyptian/Greek astrological religion is preposterous. Like I said, if you really want to study the detailed books on this information to understand why, I will be more than happy to provide you some. Judaism has its roots in Babylonian and Sumerian mythology and law, as well as influences from the Canaanite civilization (with whom more recent evidence seems to indicate they share the same genetic origin). All of this information is out there in plentiful enough quantities that someone who has spent some years studying would have found them. But even that isn't what is causing me to question your credibility-- it is that you have contradicted yourself by citing at least three Wikipedia articles whose content actually contradicts the point you claimed they made. You find some piece or sentence that seems to correspond with what you are saying and completely ignore the preceding an subsequent sentences that place it into context that has, in more than half of your citations, contradicted you.

Speculation. More likely, based on the history of American politics in general, the government didn't so much use the event to sell an idea as it attached a bunch of bad ideas on to its reactions to the attack, much like pork barrel legislation happens in Congress

Speculation maybe...no they didn't use the event to sell us going to war in Iraq, no they didn't use the the event to sell the patriot act to the american people....it wasn't selling it was "attaching" bad idea's....riiiight.

I hate repeating myself, but Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity."

Oh baloney. The Fed is mysterious and seemingly clandestine to people who have never bothered to actually perform a little bit of study on how the economy works, and is called evil by people who oppose a fiat monetary system.

So... exactly what I said basically.

If you said "it's scary to people who don't understand it," then sure. At least you would be admitting that the ridiculous conspiracy theories about the Fed are based on a lack of understanding, which is the biggest fallacy of every conspiracy theory about the Fed out there.

Are you really so cynical that you think an internet movie is going to sway the opinions of the popular culture so much as to ruin anything?

There is a guy up in the New England states right now who is holed up in his home in a stand-off with federal agents due to tax evasion, and the man is claiming this same anti-Fed rhetoric as is common in many conspiracy theory literature and media out there. In Texas there are no less than six 'compounds' that are under surveillance by the FBI because of connections with religious fundementalists and groups espousing mixtures of conspiracy theory dogma. Do you want a list of different groups who have either engaged in violent behavior in one way or another or have openly espoused anti-government propaganda to display for you how one movie is not an isolated incident but is actually a continuation of a long line of dangerous fear-mongering that has in the past resulted in incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing or other various bombings and shootouts (like Ruby Ridge) in the past? Holy mackerel, just using Wikipedia you should be able to find some examples of domestic terrorism that include incidents involving those who hold similar or the same ideals as conspiracy theory ideologies: the OKC bombing, the Centennial Park bombing at the Olympics, the Unabomber.

Is that what you took away from it...white power/anti-semite rhetoric? I must not have been watching to closely. Dangerous? Wow. What an awful world we live in where some one can make an internet movie and be considered an enemy of the state.

Put the straw man away, no one is calling the makers an enemy of the state. However, when conspiracy theory literature is rife with phrases like international bankers / financers, the messages they are trying to get across start raising some red flags to those of us who know the origins of these phrases.

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

Considering that there is over a billion internet users(232million in north america), how can you possibly think that this film being viewed(and probably forgotten) by nearly 3 million people is going to have any impact whatsoever?

See above. Also, in a film that blatantly uses material from other conspiracy theory media, why are you trying to claim it's only one internet film? It obviously is using material that exists not only in other conspiracy theory media, it's promoting it. No one has to accuse the film of grouping itself with other conspiracy media out there, the film does so itself unabashedly in its list of citations.