Linear
A whole new discussion: Zeitgeist Addendum... (Zeitgeist)
by Brian Coyne 
, LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, November 23, 2008, 01:12 (1638 days ago)
Dear all,
I've just spent the couple of hours watching Zeitgiest Addendum. Those of you who have been here for a while might remember we had quite a discussion last year when Zeitgeist the Movie first appeared. A number of people wrote critiques.
Zeitgeist Addendum has recently started circulating. I believe it offers much material for serious consideration in amongst all the discussions we have here on Catholica. The program is confrontational and I should imagine there will be much in it that different people will want to criticise. I have my own criticisms, and I'll probably have more after I've viewed the film again and fully absorbed what it is trying to get across. The producers have made it freely available on Google video (the version reproducted below) but you can also download the full version through various Bittorrent streams if you know how to use that technology and watch it in the full cinematic version.
I would welcome considered commentaries from our regular commentators, or from anyone else who might like to submit a cogently argued critique of the film. What I do suggest is that any person who is remotely interested in the sort of discussions that we have here at Catholica ought make this film "must see" viewing even if only from the point of view of understanding one significant agenda-setting force now operating in contemporary society. (I should imagine this film will have a massive following amongst many educated young people in the Western world.)
Please note the movie below runs for 2h:3m and represents a large download if you are constrained by bandwidth limits by the internet plan you are on. I don't know if I could put up with watching this small screen version for 2 hours. You can download a full screen version (about 700Mb via a BitTorrent stream) and there is no copyright restriction as the producers encourage as wider viewing of this film as possible provided it is not for commercial gain.
I have little doubt the movie will provoke much discussion on Catholica for some time to come.
You can also watch the movie directly on Google videos at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912 and www.thezeitgeistmovement.com website contains further information and also links to the earlier movie.
![[image]](http://catholica.com.au/images/CatholicaICO_30x30.jpg)
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedBreaking the ice...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, November 23, 2008, 15:43 (1637 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Dear all,
I have to confess my mind is still reeling from watching this movie last night. There are so many places of intersection with the sorts of discussions we have on Catholica. As some kind of ice-breaker I'd just like to articulate five areas that might be take-off points...
1. Paradigm Shift: I suspect Western society at large is in the midst of, or at least at the start of, a significant paradigm shift about some really basic ideas out of which we do our thinking and living. The climate change debate, the economic crisis and the so-called war on terrorism are tied up in this. Without getting into the particulars of any subject area I simply put up the overarching subject of "Paradigm Shift" as a subject for discussion in its own right.
2. Economics: What is under discussion in this movie is a fundamental re-thinking of the entire economic and social basis upon which life in the Western world has been conducted since the time of the Industrial Revolution. In our world so much of our very identity is based on this notion of "what do you do for a living". Human societies have not always been structured from that fundamental starting point. I have been arguing for perhaps two decades or more that the old relationship between the hours people work and the remuneration they earned was breaking down. The escalating gap between the rich and the poor resulting from this in the long term would be unsustainable. Whether the Zeitgeist Movement offers "the solution" or "the answer" to this massive change in society is a matter for debate. I don't think it is debateable that a massive shift in thinking is underway and there is a discussion we all need to be a part of.
3. Technology/Technologism: I found the movie particularly interesting in the light of my own recent study of Robert Tilley's book, "Benedict XVI and the Search for Truth", in which Tilley argues that Benedict sees the rise of Technologism as one of the major threats to civilisation. I was not persuaded by Robert Tilley's arguments (nor Benedict's for that matter) but neither am I convinced entirely by the arguments put forward in this movie. I do believe though that the arguments put forward in this movie and, for that matter, the arguments put forward by Benedict, do need to be understood and discussed in society at large. In some ways the members of the Venus Project discussed in ths movie might be described as the High Priests of the Technologism that Benedict is so afraid of.
4. Sustainability: There is a massive "coming together" in what is postulated in this movie and a whole set of ideas that are gaining great acceptance amongst thinking believers of the relationship humankind is called to in relation to our planet, our environment and the cosmos within which we are situated and the responsibilities attendant on us not to despoil and exploit our habitat and the legacy that God, Life and our forebears beqeath to us. In itself this is a huge area for discussion.
5. Religion/Spirituality/Theology/Philosophy: perhaps most contentious of all the program opens up a huge canvas of issues at the most fundamental level of all on the base questions out of which religion, spirituality, theology and philosophy are driven. This is perhaps the single most contentious area of all. This movie might be seen within the context of a subset or recent movies, books and ideas that have attracted an almost cult-like following in some of the agenda-setting sectors of contemporary society, particularly amongst younger people. Again this movie presents a massive canvas for discussion just within this area alone. Where I would pay credit to Pope Benedict is that he has at least discerned and been at the forefront of discussion about some of these core societal issues that set the agenda out of which civilisations are formed and grow which is more than can be said for some of his most ardent and unquestioning disciples and fan club members who seem to carry on as though "there is nothing to be discussed".
Cheers,
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedA whole new discussion: Zeitgeist Addendum...
by Debb , Sunday, November 23, 2008, 15:58 (1637 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Dear Brian,
I am interested that you think this film will be of interest to young people as its presentation is quite stilted. It is essentially a long lecture with a few pics to illustrate the points made. I laughed when I heard the lecturer talking about "the life blood" and saw dribbles of red blood flowing down the screen! I would have thought young people would go for something faster with lots of quick moving action. However, perhaps a young person can comment on that . . .
As for the content of the movie, it is really just the opinions of one or two people, without much indication of where the opinions come from, except perhaps for the ex-USA operative. How do people like that sleep at night? Still, I suppose we are all implicated in what our governments and their allies do. . .
I must confess I got rather bored half way through and jumped to the end, but of what I saw, it seems the content includes much that is far from new. A neighbour of mine was telling me all about it years ago. I think he got his information from the internet, before this movie was made.
1. The world's money system is oppressive.
I agree. I have known several people who have tried to initiate alternatives (eg an alternative bank), but they were defeated by regulations, other people's inertia and their own limited energy to keep pushing s..t uphill. So, the only solution I know is to withdraw from the system wherever we can. That is, barter with friends and neighbours, attend local markets where growers receive cash for produce and spend our money on fruit trees, whose produce will be a real, edible income, free of tax.
2. The collapse of the World Trade buildings was a conspiracy carried out by USA secret forces of some kind (or the government) to create terror amongst people so they would agree to just about anything the government wanted. Makes perfect sense to me.
3. Everything is interconnected. Of course it is.
4. Christianity is false because it recycles ancient myths. There have been erudite repudiations of this line by others more qualified than I to speak. If you don't believe you will like this story. If you do it is unlikely to undermine your faith.
I can understand that many people are impressed by this sort of movie because it articulates their own suspicions, but I always want to know: Who made this movie? and why? The movie does not have credits that answer those questions. I have read on websites that it was made by a man whose aim was to make money out of selling the DVDs, only a few of which would need to be sold to reap a profit, because the movie was so incredibly cheap to make.You can find this sort of critique quite easily by googling on Zeitgeist.
I remain cynical of these pop propaganda efforts.
lockedA whole new discussion: Zeitgeist Addendum...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, November 23, 2008, 16:16 (1637 days ago) @ Debb
Debb, I'm not suggesting this will be of much interest to the broad masses of young people who might be the fodder for the commercial television networks and the tabloid press. Those people do play a huge role in society in eventually endorsing the paradigmatic ideas around which a civilisation gets its sense of identity and mission. They tend not to be the generators of the paradigmatic ideas and fashions though. When I am suggesting this movie will have influence I mean it will have influence in those smaller sector of society, particularly the youthful sectors, where the paradigms, the thinking patterns and the fashions are set.
And, yes, I agree with you that none of the ideas presented are new. The way they have been brought together though I think is new — and highly interesting.
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedA whole new discussion: Zeitgeist Addendum...
by Debb , Sunday, November 23, 2008, 18:05 (1637 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
» Debb, I'm not suggesting this will be of much interest to the broad masses
» of young people who might be the fodder for the commercial television
» networks and the tabloid press. Those people do play a huge role in
» society in eventually endorsing the paradigmatic ideas around which a
» civilisation gets its sense of identity and mission. They tend not to be
» the generators of the paradigmatic ideas and fashions though. When I am
» suggesting this movie will have influence I mean it will have influence in
» those smaller sector of society, particularly the youthful sectors, where
» the paradigms, the thinking patterns and the fashions are set.
»
» And, yes, I agree with you that none of the ideas presented are new. The
» way they have been brought together though I think is new — and highly
» interesting.
I take your point, Brian, about paradigm shifts. I agree with the movie's claim that our belief in money is the pervasive powerful belief in our culture. It is a very difficult one to shift.
Since this global economic crisis, various political and religious writers have been saying, "Good, because now we will all rethink our approach to credit etc". Well I don't see that happening around me. The more expensive petrol becomes, the more vehicles speed past my place and the bigger they are! It is as though we (or some of us) are hell bent on living it up before disaster hits.
I suppose I have been personally engaged for some years with this issue of how we organise our relationship to the economy. "Live simply" was a motto some of tried to follow 30 years ago and many people still live like that. I have read that at least 25% of the population are downshifters. Also, apparently nurseries are reporting a drop in sales of flower seedlings and a huge increase in sales of vegetable seedlings. So, at least some people are exploring self-sufficiency. My own involvement includes trying to grow as much of our own food as possible, swapping surpluses amongst friends and neighbours, sharing saved seeds etc etc. Also preferring local activities over things that require travelling long distances, especially by car.
Another influence on many have been Permaculture, Organics and Biodynamics with their philosophy of a sustainable holistic engagement with nature and other people. A lot of young people were attracted to permaculture in particular - not sure if they still are.
What I do know is that anything to do with vegetarianism and stopping cruelty to animals will attract a big crowd of very lively, enthusiastic, healthy-looking young people. Where else they go with that I don't know.
Did you read the businessman Gerry Harvey's statement this week that giving money to people who "are not putting anything back into the community" is like "helping a whole heap of no-hopers to survive for no good reason". Several Letters to the Editor writers asked how much damage Harvey's aggressive business tactics had caused. Some people are questioning the prevailing economic regime.
This has all been a bit of a ramble, but perhaps you can see the connections.
lockedA whole new discussion: Zeitgeist Addendum...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, November 23, 2008, 20:05 (1637 days ago) @ Debb
Debb,
I don't pretend to have any answers to these things. What I do suspect strongly is that "things have got to change". My essential starting point is that we have just lived through a halcyon period in human history where we had an equation that was in almost beautiful balance — there was sufficient "work" to employ the majority for about 8 hours a day, give them 8 hours of leisure and 8 hours of rest. What's happened today is that the march of technology has basically meant that we don't need to employ the vast majority of people for 8 hours a day — machines and computers can do the work that was previously done by human sweat and mind. The trouble is not everybody can be "given a long holiday". Some people have to work longer than 8 hours a day. The work cannot be shared between two or three minds. The trouble is how does a society "reward" those who have to work 12 or 14 hours a day in an equitable way when many only need to be gainfully employed for 3 or 4 hours a day, if that? The old equation has worked brilliantly. It's not working any longer. Eventually, if we carry on the way we are going one sets up the conditions for envy and a sense of injustice — the sort of conditions that preceded the industrial age.
What I suspect needs to change is the entire paradigm as to how we give ourselves a sense of dignity and self-esteem. In the industrial age through which we have lived our sense of dignity and self-respect has largely come from our sense of the value we contribute to society — this question "what do you do for a living?" We might learn something from the indigenous peoples. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans they did not operate out of this paradigm of "what do you do for a living?" There sense of self derived, as I understand it, more from their sense of relationship and place in the family not so much by what they had to actually do, with their hands or their mind, in the society. Each person was valued more for their sense of "simply being" rather than their sense of "what productive value are you to this community or society".
What Zeitgeist Addendum seems to be driving at is that we need to re-evaluate how we derive our sense of self — and how we reward each member of society. The old certainty, the old equation, upon which society grounded its stability is disappearing out from under our feet.
I don't know what the new formula or paradigm needs to be. I'm not sure that anyone does. Tonight on television Kevin Rudd from Peru had words to say about the Economic Crisis and his hope that "Free Trade" will help the poor of the world. I am in two minds about that and I am a great fan of Adam Smith (or have been — my views are shifting). George W Bush, in the same ABC news report, was again banging on about the great benefits of "free enterprise" in providing food on the tables of the poor. I have agreed with those arguments in the past (as opposed to the socialist arguments) as to what created prosperity for the poor and the middle classes. I'm now beginning to question if that still applies. This is where "paradigm shift" is important. The base assumptions upoin which "free enterprise" and "Adam Smith's ideas" are founded assumed that there was enough work to go around for everyone and that there was a certain quantum of "work" to be undertaken in society that basically kept everyone productively engaged for about 8 hours a day. What happens to "free enterprise" and "Adam Smith's ideas" when a society simply does not need to employ everyone for 8 hours each day but only requires the input of the vast majority for a couple of hours a day? I don't know. These are part of the big questions I think society needs to be exploring.
More later. Dinner is on the table.
Cheers,
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked
Changing Paradigms
by CathyT , Adelaide, South Australia, Monday, November 24, 2008, 11:00 (1636 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Brian,
I have not had time to watch more than a little bit of the movie as yet, though I certainly agree that the economy is the real "faith" that our society is built on! However, I was very interested in your ideas about the need for a paradigm shift, and particularly with regard to the matter of how we get our sense of identity and self-worth. You are spot-on about the need to move away from a work-based culture. Or perhaps it's just a question of how we define "work".
For various reasons, I was a full-time mother throughout my children's growing-up years. I was also involved in a lot of voluntary work: with our local Neighbourhood Centre when they were pre-schoolers, then at their school, their Little Athletics club, etc., and, especially as they got older, with other organisations as well. I felt I was contributing more to society through this voluntary work, and even more so through my role as a mother, than I ever would have by being in the paid workforce. In short, the problem is that in our culture, "work" and "contributing to society" have become synonomous with having a job.
I was actually converted to a socialist viewpoint back in my young days, and, while it may seem that being a housewife and full-time mother is a very conservative option, this experience just reinforced my belief that a truly fair and equitable society is only possible if we have some kind of socialist economy. On the whole, in a capitalist society people are only paid if their work helps to make a profit for some-one, or if they are providing a necessary government, social or cultural service. Of course, resources for this non-profit option will be relatively limited, because so much of the wealth of society is tied up in private hands. In other words, money is not necessarily going to those who are contributing most to society, nor is it being spent in a way that will most benefit the common good.
I also like your idea, Brian, of learning from aboriginal society and valuing people for their sense of "simply being" rather than their sense of "what productive value are you to this community or society?". I came across an idea some years back - I think it was put forward by the Australian Democrats - that EVERY person should be entitled to a certain (minimal) amount of money from the government, as a recognition that every person, just by existing, has a right to a livelihood; paid work would be necessary just so that people could have more than a very basic standard of living, and also (hopefully) to give them some job satisfaction. I certainly think that this system should at least apply to people who are parents of dependent children, or who are other kinds of family carers.
It's certainly something we need to be seriously thinking about.
Hope you enjoyed your dinner, Brian!
Cathy Taggart
I splash in my poetry puddle
and try to keep God amused. - James Broughton
lockedChanging Paradigms
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Monday, November 24, 2008, 14:21 (1636 days ago) @ CathyT
Cathy, dinner was good although I have to confess that seems a long time ago now. For the first time in ages though I did get a good eight hours sleep last night.
I appreciate watching the film is probably difficult in that small version on the forum. I had downloaded it and Amanda and I watched it full screen which was much easier. Mind you it took me about three weeks since I first heard about the film to find the time to sit down and watch it right through.
Re your comments: I appreciated hearing your perspectives. The only query I have is whether socialism is the future? I suspect not. The point I was trying to make in referring to Kevin Rudd's comments in Peru on the weekend is that even our Labor Party today has moved well away from its socialist roots when we have a Labor Party leader advocating "free trade" on the international stage. I in fact think it is a welcome development that he is advocating although I remain cognizant of the message in the film that "free trade" can also be used as a euphamism for exploiting the poor countries of our world.
When I think of a "shifting paradigm" I am in fact thinking of a paradigm shift that takes us away from both sides of the capitalist-socialist duopoly that has characterised the "politics" of Western civilisation for all of our lifetimes and a few centuries prior to that. The "new paradigm" will be neither capitalist nor socialist. I'm trying to remember now if there was a small scence in the film where they made the point that communism and national socialism were no better than capitalism, and vice verse?
What I think is plainly evident is that the emerging social consensus from all sides of politics is that social justice must take a much higher priority. So also must sustainability. That is in fact happening within the existing paradigm. Humankind does have the capacity to make our planet uninhabitable. That is a relatively new notion in human consciousness. In the old Biblical notion on which much of our present or recent paradigm has been based, we lived out of the notion that this planet was to do with what we liked, and to exploit how we liked. Some fundamentalists still seem to believe that. Most thinking people are no longer persuaded by that part of the paradigm which was central to the thinking of even our relatively recent forebears.
The trouble is with paradigms is that they are largely "unexamined". They are the presuppositions and unexamined assumptions out of which we do our thinking, our acting, our trading and our living. Paradigms of their nature tend to constrain us — they limit our thinking. It's hard to think of some "new order" that is not either socialist or capitalist because the duopoly of socialism and capitalism are the paradigm out of which we have built our version of civilisation for so long. The indigenous peoples knew neither socialism nor capitalism. They learned those notions from us.
Bob Santamaria was one of the great advocates for the recognition of the unpaid contributions that women have long made to our economy. He was long searching for ways for that contribution to be recognised and compensated. I strongly agreed with that insight he fostered, and still do. What I am arguing is that eventually it is going to have to extend much further than just for women. Even today there is much "make work" economic activity going on in Western societies as the mechanism to distribute the wealth of a nation. (For example we keep children at school and in tertiary education much longer than was ever the case in the past.) Technology is rapidly reducing the need for people to be chained to spinning wheels and weaving looms. Even in my childhood and youth one of the biggest employers in Australian society were banks and insurance companies. Their skyscraper offices were called giant "filing cabinets in the sky". Today they simply do not need that "vast army of clerks" they once needed. Just over the valley from me is the main East-West railway across this continent. When, from time to time they maintain the track the work is done by twenty men — most of them leaning on their shovels most of the time — and a few herdy great hydraulic machines. Even fifty years ago it would have taken a team of 100 men engaged in back-breaking work to achieve the same things they do now in the same time. Society can't just employ all these people who were previously employed in banks, insurance companies and building roads and railways as part time employees at McDonalds and Hungry Jacks.
On top of all that we have the emerging problem of a vastly expanded aged population and a vastly diminished taxpayer base with which to support them. That is requiring a paradigm shift already.
If we reach a situation, as implied in the film, where we end up with 90 in every 100 people only having to work a couple of hours a day yet the other ten in managerial-type positions are having to work 11, 12 or 13 hours a day how do you create a system of reimbursement that does not end up sowing envy and jealousy at the base heart of the social and economic system? I don't pretend to know the answers. I don't think anyone does. We are collectively searching for the way forward.
Cheers,
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
lockedChanging Paradigms
by CathyT , Adelaide, South Australia, Monday, November 24, 2008, 15:31 (1636 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Thank you Brian for once again responding to my thoughts in a detailed and insightful way. I'm also glad you finally got a good sleep last night!
You've given me a lot to mull over, but I would just like to give you my initial response to some of the points you raise. I would agree that our economic future will probably not be based on either capitalism or socialism - or, at least, not on socialism as we have traditionally understood it. My concern is that, while you are right that we need to give a higher priority to social justice and sustainability, we are not going to be able to do so unless the community, or at least a democratically-elected government, has contrrol over the whole of the economy. At present we have a society in which (as some-one once put it) "profits are privatised and losses are socialised". Imagine a society in which all the profits from the most lucrative businesses could go straight where the money is most needed, to meet genuine human needs!
Similarly, I don't think the problem for the future is that there won't be enough work. Rather, it's possible that the work that will be available will either be jobs that haven't been invented yet, or the sort of work that at present we don't get paid for. In my ideal society, for instance, people with very young children - say, up to the age of three - would NOT HAVE TO HAVE A JOB AT ALL but rather, would be provided with enough resources to support their family in reasonable comfort, as well as being provided with resources and programs (such as playgroups, toy libraries, parent support groups) which would help them in their role as parents. These programs could of course provide employment opportunities for other people! We could also encourage a more socially just and sustainable society by paying people to co-ordinate the sort of activities which Debb mentions in her post earlier in this thread. I'm particularly thinking of things like community gardens or other eco-friendly joint activities. Maybe we could even, in a sense, reverse the Industrial Revolution by encouraging the setting up of cottage industries, which would not only provide meaningful work for people but would be a more eco-friendly alternative to goods having to be transported long distances.
This might all sound a bit like a pipe-dream. However, if the human race manages to survive this present ecological crisis, who knows what might lie in the future?
Cathy Taggart
I splash in my poetry puddle
and try to keep God amused. - James Broughton
lockedChanging Paradigms
by PeterR , Monday, November 24, 2008, 19:32 (1636 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
Brian,
Set the marginal tax rate for incomes over $500,000 at 101% for a start.
If one bloke robs a bank of $20,000 he is gaoled for quite some time.
If he robs it of $14,600,000 he is offered extra perks to help him enjoy a materialistic life.
I am opposed to capital punishment, but robbery of millions of dollars like this tempts me to rethink my position.
Peter
lockedINDEX to Zeitgeist discussion...
by Brian Coyne , LINDEN, NSW, Sunday, November 23, 2008, 16:39 (1637 days ago) @ Brian Coyne
For convenience of readers I've brought together all the previous discussions into a single Zeitgeist forum which you can access from the drop down menu at the top right of the forum index page. In the past there were also a number of lead commentaries we published and I'll provide there details here:
![[image]](http://www.catholica.com.au/peregrinus1/images/Zeitgeist_an_325x84.gif)
Reviewing the evidence… Peregrinus reviews some of the evidence from the "Zeitgeist" movie website and basically concludes it's all a load of codswallop. Will the codswallop make any difference to it being widely viewed and believed?
![[image]](http://www.catholica.com.au/brianstake/images/TolLimit_an_325x84.gif)
The boundary between opinion and truth… Brian Coyne seeks to open up a discussion on how we set the limits in society between tolerance for different opinions, including religious beliefs, and when there are issues of established or observable truth involved?
Dr Andrew Kania also wrote a four part series titled "Zeitgeist" which was partly triggered by the original film. His series was more focused on the breakdown in families in modern society. The series can be found at: http://www.catholica.com.au/andrewstake/046_andrewstake_231007.php
Brian Coyne
[Editor & Publisher]
locked
