Talking with the Zeitgeist

[ILO]

I was having a discussion around individual & social responsibility, and got this message from a Zeitgeist advocate.

 

 

Hey, I'm tapping out of this conversation. Maybe we can get into it some other time but I find it hard to discuss this topic with you without explaining shitloads of background info on historical economics. I'll just say, anyone that says they understand large-scale economics and can explain it to the layman is a liar. It's not a layman's subject and discussing it in such a manner i think is foolish for me to do.

 

Is deflection, word-salad, and copping out common place for the Zeitgeist movement?  That came after sharing repeated signs of interest in Zeitgeist, and admitting my lack of understanding about it.  I'm also finding it difficult to discuss with them, without being painted as some sort of "Fox News Social-Darwinist" character.  I definitely do not watch Fox, am not a Republican, and do not support the current social structure that we live with.

 

Full discussion here:  http://duncantrussell.com/forum/discussion/10621/can-the-99-create-a-sustainable-zeitgeist-world

[drh459]

I recently argued with one on my Facebook page, unfortunately I deleted the post because of the language. However from what I can recall my RBE friend would ignore my arguments, questions, and definitions and launch into anti-free market tirades ranting and raving about patriarchy, oppression, Marxist robots etc... I even asked him point blank to just explain TZM to me in a coherent manner and he couldn't articulate any sort of substantive explanation for the movement. The more interact with these people the less I take them seriously.

[Armitage]

This topic is extremely complex. It's about the society.

 

For example, sociology was called the most difficult, most advanced science. Right from its beginnings by A. Comte. Not because it is that good or exact, not at all, but because it takes data from all the other sciences that came before or after. 

 

We are used to understanding things. Yet we are people who take 30 years realizing that donkeys can't talk. So understanding is often an illusion. Understanding is not something you copy into your brain like data. It is a journey to undertake and the journey changes your physical brain structure. You become a bit different person. How can we explain ourselves to people who did not yet go on the journey? It's nearly impossible.

When asked to explain, our mind gets flooded with images from the journey and whole society. We can not possibly express it all, but we know we have a superior understanding of how society really works and why, better than some nice but vaguely metaphysical principle, such as non-aggression principle.

 

One rule of a thumb I learned, it is vital to engage in person. People in person think differently than on the internet. They are much more attentive and serious.

Another rule of thumb is, make an allowance for what you haven't said yet. Complex integrated system like economy do not make sense unless you present them as a whole. A partial presentation will be obviously "wrong". And on the internet people usually have memory and attention span of a goldfish, so any presentation is partial to them.

This can be avoided by a movie, but a movie is usually not tailored on out-groups. Such a movie must refer to basics of daily living. Such books are B. F. Skinner's Walden Two or Bellamy's Looking Backward.

 

What more can I say? One lovely thing Fresco said about people like me, men and women of the future do not avoid disagreement, they like it, they seek it out. Disagreement is a kind of refreshing variety. People who like this kind of refreshment are best suited to solve complex social problems. If you do not pry into alternate systems and solutions, you can not really know your own system, because you only see it from the in-group's point of view. A Christian has no idea what is Christianity about - just like it took humanity about 10,000 years to discover the nature of air they breathe. An ex-christian knows it better, from the inside and outside. An ex-Christian historian, comparative religions student, sociologist and philosopher in one person knows it better still. Now, replace Christianity with whatever is yours. Now, try to explain that to a member of the in-group, who knows nothing else. Got it? Now, try to not appear arrogant or smartass or not get any negative point for disagreeing with local authorities. Now, try to avoid sarcasm.