ZEITGEIST, The Movie

[Nick227]

Hmmm. Closer, but I don't think I could agree with that, either. The film seems to imply a darker motive to the establishment of religion in general, and focuses on Christianity as an amalgam of religions, some of which (like Egyptian) had no traceable influence on it. The core assertion of the film, as far as I could tell, is that religions are frauds thrust upon us as a tool for control and other bad stuff. Hence my invocation of Hanlon's Razor early on: never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity (or, in my re-wording of it, ignorance).

For sure it would be useful to agree on just what we are discussing (!) Personally, I'd agree that the film does imply a darker motive but the basic point that it attempts to assert is that the story of Jesus is not a historic tale but an oft-repeated metaphorical tale relating to sun-worship. This to me is the gist, the "matter being worked on" here, to use an alchemical metaphor.

Sure, the claims don't necessarily need to be, but they equally don't have to be considered valid, either.

That does seem to me a little different from what you wrote last post - "If a relationship is suggested-- like has been between Christ and Horus or Moses and Menes-- then this claim needs to be supported by establishing causation." (my bold)

I would say that applying any more significance than passing similarities is attempting to take correlation too far without sufficient evidence to back it up. From the perspective of scientific method, confirmation and passing repeated testing are the only games in town.

That's the perspective from scientific method, for sure. Not what we were actually discussing before though!

Are you really saying that the case in language, which is one of the most critical parts of human-to-human communication (and thus society), isn't necessarily a strong case? How strong a case do you really need to have confirmation that similarities do not mean there is a relationship?

Well, I'm sure you'd appreciate that it would be rather difficult to make a realistic assessment of the case based on the level of evidence thus far presented, ie about one sentence. If you care to provide a link to this great study I'd be happy to try and assess it.

Woah, slow down for a moment. There happens to be a fairly large amount of data from our early history, at least as far back as when we learned to write stuff down. It is just a more difficult and tedious line of study, which makes it a rather boring choice for a lot of people, who tend to find Egyptology and some Far Eastern ancient study more interesting (hence the higher number of researchers). If there were as much interest in ancient Sumerian archaeology as there is in, say, medieval history, then we would probably have a higher prevalence of published work on the data. Unfortunately, ancient Mesopotamian research is about as popular as a Libertarian Party candidate in US presidential politics.

Could I ask what light this ancient Sumerian archaeology might shine on the matter at hand?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but wouldn't that be more damning against claims of significance attributed to similarities?

I'm referring back to something that nearly got discussed nearer the beginning of our little debate. What is it that causes people to believe the story? What actually is it that attracts them to this? What is it in this part of the movie that creates that Ker...ching feeling like something has just fitted into place? And the answer is......

I never got the impression that Jung was ever referring to anything other than the need for spirituality by human beings in general. He seemed to assert that it was an essential part of the psyche of mankind, almost like something we could not find contentment or meaning without. I recall Campbell pointing out the similarities in the different mythologies, but not asserting an actual relationship beyond the fact that there are similarities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious - not such a great write-up, I think, but gives an idea. Jung believed that the unconscious mind was a shared thing, or at least that it behaved as though it was. Thus, I believe, he came to claim that certain subjective but archetypal experiences could actually be considered objective because they were group experiences. I'm not such an expert but this is what I understand.

On a separate note, it's difficult to make a believable case either way to me concerning Jesus.

Are you saying that you believe he's neither metaphorical nor real?

There were many individuals who claimed to be prophets or attempted to be leaders in Jesus' day, and some who Jews believe came even closer to meeting the criteria than Jesus did, comparatively speaking. The probability is very high that the man who Christianity knows as Jesus was either one of this list of would-be prophets who were killed by Rome, or that he is an amalgam of more than one of these would-be prophets from his time, including the fellow John the Baptist. Whether there was actually a man who stood before Pilate as the Christ story goes is mostly derived from hearsay, but the existence of men who roamed the shores of Israel teaching and attempting to heal people is fairly certain, historically speaking. Considering the story of Jesus' ministry without taking the miracles and divinity literally, there is a good probability there was someone who fit that profile-- in actuality, there were probably several. Prophets and religious 'radicals' are nothing new, and weren't even something new 2000 years ago.

Oh, I'm sure there were plenty of characters wandering about the place healing people. Go to your local high street, they're still at it today. For me there's clearly enough to say that it's more likely that the stories of Jesus are metaphorical. People are starting to believe it. Why? Because the archetypal symbols referred to are beginning to resonate in the collective unconscious and the energy created manufactures belief. Does that sound right?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No...what I am "claiming" is that astrology played a significant role in the creation of mythos, and if you trace the mythological symbolism you see it transposed across many cultures because the star positions were the same regardless of the culture. These cultures cross pollinated various idea's related to the development of religion and this is why we see an across the board similarity. Just because these mythos are not literally identical doesn't mean that there wasn't influence from the egyptians... or the babylonians, or the greeks...or whomever....your getting so hung up on the finite minutiae that seperates them that you are unable to see the broader picture...step back a little. Of course cultures are going to have their unique qualities, but as history clearly demonstrates...the mythos travels and evolves with the people...so there are going to inevitably be similarities and there will be differences based on local culture, environment..etc...

I think what the film missed out on bringing up, presumably because the writer didn't want to go there, was that it's not really a simple as "sun idolatry." The story of Jesus, like the story of Moses, and the story of Horus and Osiris articulates a perennial mystical philosopy and alludes to a spiritual destiny for mankind. I imagine the writer didn't want to drag in a lot of material that would have been tangential to the thrust of the argument he was creating, so he just didn't go there. Fair enough.

The relationship between astrology and Christian mythos is far better articulated in Gnostic teachings, which whilst not "objective," in the sense that the word is used in common (non-Jungian) parlance, is none the less intriguing.

The 12 signs of the zodiac are attributed to 3 Crosses, each comprising 4 astrological houses at 90 degrees to each other. These 3 crosses are known as the Mutable, Fixed, and Cardinal crosses. The mutable cross is believed to be the travelling place of "unawakened humanity," the sufferers of the delusionary and fallen perspective of separation. Countless lifetimes are spent on the mutable cross until passage to the Fixed Cross occurs (Fixed = taurus, leo, scorpio, aquarius).

The Fixed Cross, or Cross of Crucifixion, is the place where the individual soul is "fixed" to the spot and can no longer avoid examining what he or she is carrying around in his or her unconscious mind. The contents of the unconscious are brought up into the awareness of the individual in a Revelation-esque orgy of torments and they are compelled to suffer it all (Crucifixion) until they are sufficiently purified of delusional perspectives and may thus transfer to the Cardinal cross, the place of spiritual mastery.

This process is symbolically related in esoteric versions of Tarot Key 10, for example www.bota.org/botaineurope//en/cartes/k10.gif and well articulated in books like The Pattern of Initiation in the Evolution of Consciousness, Dawkins and Trevelyan and other more modern gnostic texts.

The story of Jesus, like the others in Zeitgeist, or in Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces, all broadly follow this model and it is, essentially, the spiritual archetype from which they are derived.

Nick

 

[allibearbear]

Ooh, ooh! I've been waiting patiently for this to circle back around! Beautiful.

Nick227 Post #548

Originally Posted by GreNME
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.

Nick227
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.

Nick227 #621

I'm referring back to something that nearly got discussed nearer the beginning of our little debate. What is it that causes people to believe the story? What actually is it that attracts them to this? What is it in this part of the movie that creates that Ker...ching feeling like something has just fitted into place? And the answer is......

Originally Posted by GreNME View Post
I never got the impression that Jung was ever referring to anything other than the need for spirituality by human beings in general. He seemed to assert that it was an essential part of the psyche of mankind, almost like something we could not find contentment or meaning without. I recall Campbell pointing out the similarities in the different mythologies, but not asserting an actual relationship beyond the fact that there are similarities.

Nick227
wikipedia/wiki/Collective_unconscious - not such a great write-up, I think, but gives an idea. Jung believed that the unconscious mind was a shared thing, or at least that it behaved as though it was. Thus, I believe, he came to claim that certain subjective but archetypal experiences could actually be considered objective because they were group experiences. I'm not such an expert but this is what I understand.

 

[GreNME]

For sure it would be useful to agree on just what we are discussing (!) Personally, I'd agree that the film does imply a darker motive but the basic point that it attempts to assert is that the story of Jesus is not a historic tale but an oft-repeated metaphorical tale relating to sun-worship. This to me is the gist, the "matter being worked on" here, to use an alchemical metaphor.

I think that you're placing the supporting reasons used by the film as the gist, but either way that equivocation to sun worship is one of the things I disagree with, at least with the origin development of Jesus for nearly 400 years prior to Constantine the sun worshipper got 'converted' (at least superficially). It should be noted, though, that the film even got the origin of the concept of using Sunday as the Christian sabbath wrong-- some Pauline early Christians began holding supper observances on the day after the Jewish sabbath to commemorate the last supper of Christ. This is also where early examples of what became the eucharist originate.

That does seem to me a little different from what you wrote last post - "If a relationship is suggested-- like has been between Christ and Horus or Moses and Menes-- then this claim needs to be supported by establishing causation." (my bold)

No, you just misunderstood my sarcasm. I was basically saying that the need for consideration of validity is directly proportional to the amount of supporting evidence.

That's the perspective from scientific method, for sure. Not what we were actually discussing before though!

I thought we were discussing history and archaeology, which seem to me to both be sciences. The same would apply to sociology, since you've (deftly!) brought up names like Jung and Campbell.

Well, I'm sure you'd appreciate that it would be rather difficult to make a realistic assessment of the case based on the level of evidence thus far presented, ie about one sentence. If you care to provide a link to this great study I'd be happy to try and assess it.

Have you been following the other links I've provided? One link was a list of many words, providing examples of similar words that meant similar things and similar words that meant the opposite of each other in different languages. But if you want some interesting reading, you can check out this link (complete with equations!), this link (with cultural analyses), or this link (a basic article).

I'm surprised at your incredulity, I must say.

Could I ask what light this ancient Sumerian archaeology might shine on the matter at hand?

For one, it could provide a balancing of the tendency to over-emphasize the popularity of Egyptology. Mostly, though, it was an example of just one of the ancient cultures who had a known affect on the development of Judaism, and would likely have the effect of encouraging study in the surrounding civilizations due to the types of relationships the Sumerians shared with their direct neighbors.

I'm referring back to something that nearly got discussed nearer the beginning of our little debate. What is it that causes people to believe the story? What actually is it that attracts them to this? What is it in this part of the movie that creates that Ker...ching feeling like something has just fitted into place? And the answer is......

Ignorance. There isn't a lot of scholarly focus on ancient civilizations through primary and secondary schooling. Parading a bunch of simiarities and claiming that they imply a direct causation is not an uncommon rhetorical technique used by salespeople, and when the subject matter is something the viewer hasn't a full understanding of to begin with the most common reaction is assuming that the salesperson has obviously done their research and knows what they're talking about. It's been one of the best tricks of the trade for snake-oil sales throughout history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious - not such a great write-up, I think, but gives an idea. Jung believed that the unconscious mind was a shared thing, or at least that it behaved as though it was. Thus, I believe, he came to claim that certain subjective but archetypal experiences could actually be considered objective because they were group experiences. I'm not such an expert but this is what I understand.

He only dealt in archetypes as applies to mankind as a whole, never claiming any distinct cultural relationships in those archetypes outside of pointing out the similarities.

On a separate note, it's difficult to make a believable case either way to me concerning Jesus.

Are you saying that you believe he's neither metaphorical nor real?

You are obviously proficient enough at the English language to understand what I said. Please don't ask me to explain the idea of religious agnosticism. I make no claim one way or the other because there is insufficient evidence to make an assertion either way. That's it.

Oh, I'm sure there were plenty of characters wandering about the place healing people. Go to your local high street, they're still at it today. For me there's clearly enough to say that it's more likely that the stories of Jesus are metaphorical. People are starting to believe it.

So it seems more plausible to you just because everybody else is doing it?

Why? Because the archetypal symbols referred to are beginning to resonate in the collective unconscious and the energy created manufactures belief. Does that sound right?

Have you ever heard of David Koresh? Jim Jones? Or a possibly more relevant example, Joseph Smith? Plenty of people believe(d) in them as well. Smith is the best example because he is both recent enough in history to be considered from modern times, and yet there is a religious mythology of his performing a deed directly guided by the divine. Benny Hinn has quite a lucrative enterprise based on his allegedly divinely-inspired power. Scientology has evolved from a sci-fi writer's rant against phsychology to a full-fledged religion that can afford lawyers enough to sue your pants off for calling their religion a sham (if they wish). Heck, the Mr. Randi has regularly encountered people claiming extraordinary powers throughout his career, and often those people performed for paying crowds (meaning some of them probably believed).

There are examples of people following the progression of hero to martyr to divine throughout history and modern times. Even the canonization of saints is a display of this habit people have at play. And frankly, it happens to a degree so much more common than building an Earth-bound deity that when looking at probabilities, there is just as much likelihood that the Christ story is one of a man than of a metaphor.

 

[Nick227]

He only dealt in archetypes as applies to mankind as a whole, never claiming any distinct cultural relationships in those archetypes outside of pointing out the similarities.

Well, to me what Jung is referring to when coined the term "collective unconscious" is.......a great sea! There are waves on the sea and the waves have, for a period, the belief that they are individual, unconnected. They have the possibility to believe this and so it comes about. I mean, Jung was heavily immersed in esoteric thought and wrote tracts on Alchemy. He would have been fully aware of these strands of thought. To me, it's pretty clear and reinforced when one considers how he later changed the term to "objective psyche."

Why? Because the archetypal symbols referred to are beginning to resonate in the collective unconscious and the energy created manufactures belief. Does that sound right?

Have you ever heard of David Koresh? Jim Jones? Or a possibly more relevant example, Joseph Smith? Plenty of people believe(d) in them as well. Smith is the best example because he is both recent enough in history to be considered from modern times, and yet there is a religious mythology of his performing a deed directly guided by the divine. Benny Hinn has quite a lucrative enterprise based on his allegedly divinely-inspired power. Scientology has evolved from a sci-fi writer's rant against phsychology to a full-fledged religion that can afford lawyers enough to sue your pants off for calling their religion a sham (if they wish). Heck, the Mr. Randi has regularly encountered people claiming extraordinary powers throughout his career, and often those people performed for paying crowds (meaning some of them probably believed).

There are examples of people following the progression of hero to martyr to divine throughout history and modern times. Even the canonization of saints is a display of this habit people have at play. And frankly, it happens to a degree so much more common than building an Earth-bound deity that when looking at probabilities, there is just as much likelihood that the Christ story is one of a man than of a metaphor.

I think this is a good point. But are you saying that these individuals following similar life-courses are doing so randomly, or at the behest of innate drives, or what?

Nick

 

[GreNME]

Well, to me what Jung is referring to when coined the term "collective unconscious" is.......a great sea! There are waves on the sea and the waves have, for a period, the belief that they are individual, unconnected. They have the possibility to believe this and so it comes about. I mean, Jung was heavily immersed in esoteric thought and wrote tracts on Alchemy. He would have been fully aware of these strands of thought. To me, it's pretty clear and reinforced when one considers how he later changed the term to "objective psyche."

Rather than getting too esoteric, I'd say that Jung's observations were, on the whole, to the effect of "mankind has these spiritual needs, and these are the basic archetypes that are often used to fill these needs." I like his observations, but for me taking it any further than that reminds me of how Jung and some of his friends-- like his buddy Sig[mund Freud]-- were mainly working off educated guesses.

I think this is a good point. But are you saying that these individuals following similar life-courses are doing so randomly, or at the behest of innate drives, or what?

Without trying to sound too cheesy: some might do it for the money; some might do it for the power; others might do it because they honestly believe in what they can do. We human beings often prefer our leaders to be remarkable, and when charasmatic people come along inspiring others to follow, this is when that collective unconscious we were talking about starts coming into play, slowing fitting that charsima into an archetype. Some of those archetypes are mystic, some are diefied or diety-powered, some simply attribute extra-human capabilities (describing them as taller, smarter, what-have-you). It all depends on the archetype.

We like our heroes. We always have.

 

[Nick227]

Rather than getting too esoteric, I'd say that Jung's observations were, on the whole, to the effect of "mankind has these spiritual needs, and these are the basic archetypes that are often used to fill these needs." I like his observations, but for me taking it any further than that reminds me of how Jung and some of his friends-- like his buddy Sig[mund Freud]-- were mainly working off educated guesses.

They were working off educated guesses, for sure. But then, that actually is all anyone can do at the end of the day. If you stretch out with objective observation of the world that appears to be "out there" for long enough you will find out that all objectivity finally collapses in paradox. This level of awareness that our minds these days mostly inhabit is a bubble.

Of course, if you can drive yourself to just hard focus down on one perspective for the whole of your three score years and ten, you might just escape ever realising this. I tried! Personally, I'm quite glad I failed.

Nick

 

[GreNME]

They were working off educated guesses, for sure. But then, that actually is all anyone can do at the end of the day. If you stretch out with objective observation of the world that appears to be "out there" for long enough you will find out that all objectivity finally collapses in paradox. This level of awareness that our minds these days mostly inhabit is a bubble.

Of course, if you can drive yourself to just hard focus down on one perspective for the whole of your three score years and ten, you might just escape ever realising this. I tried! Personally, I'm quite glad I failed.

Respectfully, that sounds to me like proselytizing. They were working from limited knowledge based primarily on a general lack of prior foundational studies in their fields. This is why these men (and more) are considered pioneers in their field. However, at least with Jung, much of his work seems intentionally written to speak to the study of his writings on a personal level, and his philosophical contributions being such to address mankind in general. These guys-- Jung, Freud, Kant, etc.-- were very careful to not make absolute statements. Even though some Freud's work is no longer considered a staple of psychological practice, his methods of psychoanalysis and evaluation of the mind on different conscious levels remains a large part of modern psychology. None of these men were infallible, and their writing reflected that they seemed aware of this. That, if anything, is one of the most prominent things that separates these types of men from the hucksters and people preaching "truth" in terms of absolutes.

I don't know why you are so focused on the objective versus subjective thing, since most of what I'm saying doesn't assert absolutely one way or the other. It's not objectivity, but context that I find necessary. Without context, there is no support; without support, a claim loses validity; without validity, a claim is little more than wild guesswork.

 

[Nick227]

Respectfully, that sounds to me like proselytizing. They were working from limited knowledge based primarily on a general lack of prior foundational studies in their fields. This is why these men (and more) are considered pioneers in their field. However, at least with Jung, much of his work seems intentionally written to speak to the study of his writings on a personal level, and his philosophical contributions being such to address mankind in general. These guys-- Jung, Freud, Kant, etc.-- were very careful to not make absolute statements. Even though some Freud's work is no longer considered a staple of psychological practice, his methods of psychoanalysis and evaluation of the mind on different conscious levels remains a large part of modern psychology. None of these men were infallible, and their writing reflected that they seemed aware of this. That, if anything, is one of the most prominent things that separates these types of men from the hucksters and people preaching "truth" in terms of absolutes.

I don't know why you are so focused on the objective versus subjective thing, since most of what I'm saying doesn't assert absolutely one way or the other. It's not objectivity, but context that I find necessary. Without context, there is no support; without support, a claim loses validity; without validity, a claim is little more than wild guesswork.

Well, I'd agree. And context is a subjective field. I guess I focus on this subjective-objective aspect because it does often seem to me the crux, so to speak, of the whole conspiracy true vs conspiracy false debate. I have seen over and over again individuals demanding absurd levels of "proof" of statements made by the conspiracy true brigade, apparently with virtually zero awareness of what they really mean by this word. Rather like a child closing his or her eyes and mindlessly repeating a word in the hope that it will make all the nasty things go away. It's extremely rare indeed, ime, to meet a conspiracy false advocate who has even the most basic grasp of methodology and its limitations.

Part 1 Zeitgeist - Jesus lived or not. Hard to get really good data. Certainly reasonable level of evidence that he's part of an enduring monomyth. Equally could have been a healer of the time. What would you say - 50:50? Seems reasonable to me.

Part 2 Zeitgeist - 9/11 a false flag or not. Hard to get really good data. Massive implications tend to sway most people's objectivity. Leaving out all the implications, focussing only on what's known - i'd say better than 50:50 false flag

Part 3 Zeitgeist - Fed running world and plotting to microchip humanity. Does appear to be circumstantial evidence to support this. In the UK, currently there is extreme, quite unprecedented publicity given to child abduction cases and scientists pop up in the media saying "well, you know, the only way to protect them is chipping." The media do exert increasing levels of social control. Who knows?

Nick

 

[GreNME]

Well, I'd agree. And context is a subjective field. I guess I focus on this subjective-objective aspect because it does often seem to me the crux, so to speak, of the whole conspiracy true vs conspiracy false debate. I have seen over and over again individuals demanding absurd levels of "proof" of statements made by the conspiracy true brigade, apparently with virtually zero awareness of what they really mean by this word. Rather like a child closing his or her eyes and mindlessly repeating a word in the hope that it will make all the nasty things go away. It's extremely rare indeed, ime, to meet a conspiracy false advocate who has even the most basic grasp of methodology and its limitations.

Well, one thing that may distinguish me from a hard conspiracy false kind of mentality is that I am suspicious of any claims for "truth" in either direction. The term itself, "truth," has far too much baggage associated with it for me to consider any claims of it without some level of skepticism. However, there does come a point where different levels of probability come into play, and subjective or not context factors in different probability levels in a fairly strong objective manner, provided there is intellectual honesty involved. Otherwise, the exercise is simply a matter of rearranging data to fit into a preconcieved assumption.

I usually hold that as my largest reason for remaining an agnostic instead of embracing some sort of concrete belief.

Part 1 Zeitgeist - Jesus lived or not. Hard to get really good data. Certainly reasonable level of evidence that he's part of an enduring monomyth. Equally could have been a healer of the time. What would you say - 50:50? Seems reasonable to me.

Part 2 Zeitgeist - 9/11 a false flag or not. Hard to get really good data. Massive implications tend to sway most people's objectivity. Leaving out all the implications, focussing only on what's known - i'd say better than 50:50 false flag

Part 3 Zeitgeist - Fed running world and plotting to microchip humanity. Does appear to be circumstantial evidence to support this. In the UK, currently there is extreme, quite unprecedented publicity given to child abduction cases and scientists pop up in the media saying "well, you know, the only way to protect them is chipping." The media do exert increasing levels of social control. Who knows?

Are you asking what I think, or what the movie seems to portray?

 

[Stout]

Interesting discussion guys...I've been following this thread for over a week now and one thing that's really kept me questioning is trying to figure out just what Nick227 is trying to say.

I think I've got it now, but I need a little confirmation.

Nick...are you saying that belief is just as important as fact ? In other words, subjectivity is just as important as objectivity ?

I believe this is what your trying to get across and, ( hypothetically, of course ) were I to step outside and notice my Ferrari was missing, and I believed that you, Nick stole it based on the word "nick" being slang for steal, and 2+2+7 =11 which is a prime number and the Ferrari went missing during an episode of CSI, which is on at prime time....

Would you respond to my accusations with objective facts like...we don't even live on the same continent, and the motor vehicles office has no record of me ever even owning a Ferrari...

Or would you just accept my beliefs unconditionally and simply admit to the crime and, after you got out of jail, buy me a "new" Ferrari ?

 

[GreNME]

I don't think he's been saying that beliefs and facts are equally important. He has been stressing that subjectivity and objectivity are both important factors, and that a lot more stuff is subjective than general consensus sometimes seems to indicate.

 

[Stout]

I see. Speaking as someone who ran, screaming from philosophy class, sometimes when I see conversations like you guys are having I really have a difficult time trying to determine just what, exactly am I reading ?

I find this discussion particularly interesting, because not only is the subject matter over my head ( academically speaking ) but as an atheist ( or apathetic agnostic if I want to be pedantic and avoid "that" conversation ) I don't have any stake in the eventual outcome of the discussion.

I'm in it for the art

One question I do have though. Why was this topic included in Zeitgeist ? I have a ( subjective ) opinion, that being, that people who tend toward believing the other two parts of the movie are probably apt to be anti-Christian and and "evidence" that Christianity was, in effect, ripped off from Pagan rituals then the stage is set for watching the following two sections with righteous indignation.

I could be wrong though, I don't always believe what I think.

 

[Nick227]

Interesting discussion guys...I've been following this thread for over a week now and one thing that's really kept me questioning is trying to figure out just what Nick227 is trying to say.

I think I've got it now, but I need a little confirmation.

Nick...are you saying that belief is just as important as fact ? In other words, subjectivity is just as important as objectivity ?

I'm saying the two are far closer together than many people on this list are wont to believe. When you want to create separation in the mind, when you need to create the belief that something absolutely is not something else, people will believe that subjective and objective are somehow polar opposites or at least miles apart. They are not.

I believe this is what your trying to get across and, ( hypothetically, of course ) were I to step outside and notice my Ferrari was missing, and I believed that you, Nick stole it based on the word "nick" being slang for steal, and 2+2+7 =11 which is a prime number and the Ferrari went missing during an episode of CSI, which is on at prime time....

Would you respond to my accusations with objective facts like...we don't even live on the same continent, and the motor vehicles office has no record of me ever even owning a Ferrari...

Or would you just accept my beliefs unconditionally and simply admit to the crime and, after you got out of jail, buy me a "new" Ferrari ?

I would ignore you as obviously being a deluded imbecile, since you ask. Of course it's nice and easy when you create a case where it's so clear that things are delusional. But sadly Stout the real world actually isn't like that much of the time. Why not create a case where it's murky as hell, where there are massive stakes, where your whole mind could seem to be threatened? Then see what happens.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Part 1 Zeitgeist - Jesus lived or not. Hard to get really good data. Certainly reasonable level of evidence that he's part of an enduring monomyth. Equally could have been a healer of the time. What would you say - 50:50? Seems reasonable to me.

Part 2 Zeitgeist - 9/11 a false flag or not. Hard to get really good data. Massive implications tend to sway most people's objectivity. Leaving out all the implications, focussing only on what's known - i'd say better than 50:50 false flag

Part 3 Zeitgeist - Fed running world and plotting to microchip humanity. Does appear to be circumstantial evidence to support this. In the UK, currently there is extreme, quite unprecedented publicity given to child abduction cases and scientists pop up in the media saying "well, you know, the only way to protect them is chipping." The media do exert increasing levels of social control. Who knows?

Are you asking what I think, or what the movie seems to portray?

I'm asking you what you think.

Nick

 

[DavidJames]

I would ignore you as obviously being a deluded imbecile, since you ask. Of course it's nice and easy when you create a case where it's so clear that things are delusional. But sadly Stout the real world actually isn't like that much of the time. Why not create a case where it's murky as hell, where there are massive stakes, where your whole mind could seem to be threatened? Then see what happens.

Nick

Fascinating response. Stout produces a set related (to him) facts. You decide they are "delusional". However, if you can produce a set of related facts, that would be okay.

 

[Nick227]

Fascinating response. Stout produces a set related (to him) facts. You decide they are "delusional". However, if you can produce a set of related facts, that would be okay.

David,

Stout produced a case which, imo, is considerably loaded. It is clear that the argument that I nicked the car is delusional. If you're talking about the arguments provided in the movie then I'd say they're a lot tighter than the idea that I've had his Ferrari on my toes. People ridicule the idea that Jesus didn't live. Why? That's what they do with stuff outside their mental vision of the world. They ridicule it. There's actually precious little evidence Jesus ever lived, but still they just ridicule it. It's a nervous reaction.

Would discuss more but I have to go and shift this knackered old ferrari

Nick

 

[Stout]

Nick...Why should it matter whether I created a scenario that's clear cut or murky ? In both instances there's going to be evidence supporting either side and I'm going to go with whichever evidence makes a stronger case than that evidence that supports some assumption I'm trying to maintain.

In other words, I'm the kind of guy lawyers want on a jury.

You say "knackered old Ferrari" I say "collectors item" Who's right ? Why the Ferrari experts of course. If they tell me there's millions of those 1969 Dino's cruising the streets of Africa and I'm mistaken in my opinion that there's only a few of them left in the world, why yes then, you do have a worthless beater on your hands. I'd be completely wrong in demanding you pay me a quarter million dollars and should instead be thanking you for clearing out my driveway for me.

 

[GreNME]

Nick...Why should it matter whether I created a scenario that's clear cut or murky ?

Have you ever heard of a "loaded question?" What you asked is exactly that. It was unrealistic and not indicative of the things Nick was saying. Your scenario was framed in a manner similar to: "do you feel beating your wife nightly is good for your marriage?"

In other words, I'm the kind of guy lawyers want on a jury.

Whatever country you live in, please let me know so I know to never visit there. In US courts, attorneys from both sides have a say in the selection process.


---

I'm asking you what you think.

Nick

I disagree with pretty much all of the movie's conclusions, mostly based on the blatant lack of understanding on two subjects (the Fed and the religious culture stuff), and for cutting and pasting the same questionable "evidence" for the middle piece. Even things where they might have had some stuff worth consideration, they lost credibility for it with presentation.

Do I think that the breakdowns you give could be put forth in a manner deserving of worthwhile consideration? Sure, but so far your presentation has been heads and tails above the whole production of Zeitgeist.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I think what the film missed out on bringing up, presumably because the writer didn't want to go there, was that it's not really a simple as "sun idolatry." The story of Jesus, like the story of Moses, and the story of Horus and Osiris articulates a perennial mystical philosopy and alludes to a spiritual destiny for mankind. I imagine the writer didn't want to drag in a lot of material that would have been tangential to the thrust of the argument he was creating, so he just didn't go there. Fair enough.

The relationship between astrology and Christian mythos is far better articulated in Gnostic teachings, which whilst not "objective," in the sense that the word is used in common (non-Jungian) parlance, is none the less intriguing.

The 12 signs of the zodiac are attributed to 3 Crosses, each comprising 4 astrological houses at 90 degrees to each other. These 3 crosses are known as the Mutable, Fixed, and Cardinal crosses. The mutable cross is believed to be the travelling place of "unawakened humanity," the sufferers of the delusionary and fallen perspective of separation. Countless lifetimes are spent on the mutable cross until passage to the Fixed Cross occurs (Fixed = taurus, leo, scorpio, aquarius).

The Fixed Cross, or Cross of Crucifixion, is the place where the individual soul is "fixed" to the spot and can no longer avoid examining what he or she is carrying around in his or her unconscious mind. The contents of the unconscious are brought up into the awareness of the individual in a Revelation-esque orgy of torments and they are compelled to suffer it all (Crucifixion) until they are sufficiently purified of delusional perspectives and may thus transfer to the Cardinal cross, the place of spiritual mastery.

This process is symbolically related in esoteric versions of Tarot Key 10, for example www.bota.org/botaineurope//en/cartes/k10.gif and well articulated in books like The Pattern of Initiation in the Evolution of Consciousness, Dawkins and Trevelyan and other more modern gnostic texts.

The story of Jesus, like the others in Zeitgeist, or in Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces, all broadly follow this model and it is, essentially, the spiritual archetype from which they are derived.

Nick

nick-
I think I generally agree with your statments particularly the commentary on a "perennial mystical philosopy". The concept of a "divine hero" archetype could possibly date back further than records would be able to validate. I would be curious about when this idea emerged in the public consciousness though.

The contents of the unconscious are brought up into the awareness of the individual in a Revelation-esque orgy of torments and they are compelled to suffer it all (Crucifixion) until they are sufficiently purified of delusional perspectives and may thus transfer to the Cardinal cross, the place of spiritual mastery.

This reminds me a lot of the supposed "shamanic initiation illness" that practioners claim to suffer in the early stages of their development, it makes me wonder about what cross correlates one might find if one were to traverse back in time to an era where religion was more localized and "tribal".

Are you a bota subscriber?