Sunday, April 25, 2010

Peter Joseph goes after the Skeptic Project


Consp-Science.com: A Case Study in Intellectual Inhibition :S


Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Earth 2.0 finds its own way

Wednesday, April 7, 2010


Earth 2.0 Finds Its Own Way

We always said we were on a journey; a journey of exploration, a journey of learning. Given the subject matter of Earth 2.0 – namely the new operating principles our species needs to employ if we are to have a sustainable biospherical future – creative ups and downs in the pre-production process were always going to be inevitable. But it still came as a distinct shock to us when we got into a bit of a rumble with The Venus Project (see an earlier blog article about our initial visit to The Venus Project a few months back). Well, it started out as a bit of a rumble but soon escalated to the point where we were forced to part company with working with them. In retrospect this is no bad thing and has meant that we are learning to stand on our own two feet independently of other projects. After all, we are making an independent movie and our creativity is at the behest of no organisation or movement (other than the biosphere of course).

Signs of looming trouble began in New York in mid-March. We were there to meet up again with Jacque Fresco (director of The Venus Project) along with his partner Roxanne Meadows. They were appearing at the annual Z-Day event (part of the Zeitgeist Movement). Now, up until this point we had been working very closely with Jacque. Indeed, we had lined him up to be the first main ‘actor’ in Earth 2.0. We wanted to him to delineate the core principles of The Venus Project such as the sharing of the Earth’s resources. In fact, the idea has been to focus one section of Earth 2.0 on the notion of sharing and all that this implies.

The trouble began one morning over breakfast. As we sat and talked in a 71
st Street restaurant, a background ‘issue’ came to the fore once more. Basically, Jacque and Roxanne do not like metaphysics. Anything spiritual or pertaining to the expansion of consciousness is anathema to The Venus Project. They even refer to popular spiritual ideas as “verbal masturbation”. We knew this harsh stance of theirs only too well from previous meetings but had not let it interfere with our collaboration. Yet  it was becoming ever more clear, at least to us, that The Venus Project will not be able to deliver its healing promise all by itself but needs to be driven by raised consciousness and changed values, both of which are psychological in nature and also unavoidably connected to emotion and spirit.

In other words, it is not enough to change social conditions and surround people with humane and intelligently applied technology (Mr Fresco’s futurising revolves around this). All that means nothing if people themselves do not change inwardly in terms of their consciousness and their values. No matter how prevalent you make resources, no matter how utopian you engineer culture, no matter how efficient your mag-lev trains are, no matter how free you are of laborious work, people will still remain subject to petty negative emotions and will still have unhealthy relationships with one another. They will still identify with various exclusive groups, they will still be mean and angry and envious and be subject to all those other negative manifestations that we suffer from. These negative aspects of the human psyche are mechanical (i.e. they happen on their own) and effect us all regardless of external conditions. Yes, you can certainly design a culture which brings out the best in people and which does away with scarcity and financial corruption and such. But unless people develop themselves inwardly through mindfulness and self-knowledge, they will still find something to covet, something to get angry about, something to compete over, something to bear a grudge over, something to form a chip on the shoulder about, someone to be angry at, someone to fight with, someone to make into an enemy, someone to be envious of, and so on. And it is through a lack of consciousness and attentiveness to our relationships that leads to all of the above. Relationships are everything. Our relationships, with others and also toward environmental influences, define our lives. The chief problems of humanity therefore boil down to unhealthy relationships – with one another, with the rest of the biospherical web of life, and, ultimately, with the rest of the cosmos.


Consider how luxurious our lives are now compared with people living in the Middle Ages (back then there was no running water, no electricity, no shops, no cheap clothing, no fast food, no public transport, no spare time, no media, no internet, no mobile phones, no NHS, no welfare, no human rights, etc). We in the West now have pretty much everything in comparison. Yet we are still subject to stress, depression, existential malaise, greed, ego inflation, hatred, ecological insensitivity, racism, alcoholic violence, religious war,  along with all manner of other negative manifestations and problematic relationships.


Thus, to reiterate, only inner psychological change – a change in values, an increase in self-knowledge, and a changed conception of our relationship to the biosphere and to one another – can pave the way toward healthy long term cultural change. Which means that radical personal change must precede radical social change. Our culture and all that our culture values and promotes is a direct reflection of the values of the collective psyche. If we change our minds and our values, if we become more sensitive to the life-support system that is the biosphere, if we change how we relate to one another and to the rest of Nature, if we upgrade our conception of the meaning of life, then our culture will change also.


Anyhow, we told Jacque and Roxanne that alongside The Venus Project our film will perforce feature other positive directions for change, other important visionary ideas. In particular, along with sharing, we will likely feature a section on symbiosis as well as a section pertaining to consciousness and self-knowledge (i.e. those ideas and practices that directly address the inner world outlined above). Plus a section on the various technologies at our disposal that can help to promote sharing, symbiosis and a new relationship with the rest of Nature. And all done in an artistic cinematic style.


Sounds fair enough? Not so. Explaining that Earth 2.0 wanted to present other strands of thought alongside the ideals of The Venus Project caused tremendous consternation. It soon became clear that The Venus Project is so rigid and inflexible that it will not associate itself with any other ideas. Worse, when we tried to explain why we wanted to feature a section on symbiosis (because it is a sustainable operating principle long employed throughout the web of life), Jacque and Roxanne would not have it. Indeed, they would not even allow the conversation to proceed forward. And I dearly wanted to tell them about mitochondria (the energy producing organelles inside our cells that have their own DNA thereby revealing their symbiotic origins). But it was impossible. They did not wish to listen.  


This stubborn conviction that The Venus Project possesses the only practical way to solve the world’s problems proved to be so marked that voices became raised. Yet we bent over backwards trying to reason with them. Surely being featured in a major release cinematic film would be for the best and would help them to spread their message regardless if it was included as part of a broader spectrum of new ideas? I mean, their Florida residence was at that time for sale. They need publicity and funds. But no, they adamantly refused to mix their ideas with other ideas, particularly if those other ideas were about learning from Nature or about metaphysics and self-knowledge. And so it was that we parted company.


Looking back on these events, what we have learned is that one can differentiate between The Venus Project (a rigid organisation) and some of the ideas it promotes (which are adaptable). For instance, the idea that the Earth’s resources be shared and that mankind behave like the global family that it actually is, is not a new idea nor is it copyrighted to The Venus Project. In fact, much of what Jacque Fresco talks about and writes about is voiced by any number of wise people. Thus, Earth 2.0 will still explore the notion of sharing planetary wealth and behaving toward one another in a non-competitive non-profit way. And rather than focus on the circular cities of Jacque Fresco, Earth 2.0 will look at current urban upgrades and current technologies that can bring us back into harmony with the larger biospherical system of which we are a part. Indeed, Earth 2.0 will look at what the web of life can teach us about sustainable behaviour – after all, life has had three and a half billion years to hone the art of sustainability.

Returning to the notion that the world is made of relationships and that it is relationships that must evolve and be upgraded if we are to have a sustainable planetary tenure – this notion of relationships came to the fore with the break with The Venus Project. For the plain fact of the matter is that The Venus Project is, by its very nature, incapable of relating to many people. It is as though it has been in a bubble for the last 30 years, separated from the rest of the world, and has lost the power of empathetic communication. So whereas Mr Fresco can speak well on stage about various subjects, as far as current trends are concerned wherein people are upgrading their lives in an eco-friendly way, this is something that seems outside the scope of The Venus Project (having visited the sprawling headquarters of The Venus Project numerous times it is rather ironic that, despite copious Florida sunshine, there are no solar panels, nor are there any signs of home-grown vegetables). 


The biggest problem however is when the issue at hand turns to mind and spirit – for this is something that leaves The Venus Project cold and mute. Yet we are all in this reality together and thus we have to relate to one another via common ground. This common ground is the biosphere, Nature, the web of life on Earth, that larger life support system into which humanity is woven. And the common ground is also our inner life, our consciousness. This too we share and this too we can upgrade. All this must be taken into account by Earth 2.0. So now we stand on our own two feet and now we move forward with determination and confidence. This is the Way.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Daniel Pinchbeck's critique of the Zeitgeist Movement

Critique of Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project

The Venus Project has merged with The Zeitgiest Movement: How are their aims, ideals, and intentions different from what the Evolver Social Movement proposes? (I know we haven't made a clear statement of principles yet, but I am curious of people's intuitions about this).

From what I have seen so far, I don't personally resonate that deeply with the Venus Project. Their vision of a technologically driven future - skyscraper cities on the oceans etc - already seems oddly old-fashioned to me. I also don't think I agree with an approach to human society that is entirely based on resources and how they are allocated. This seems a bit depersonalizing. Visiting Z Day in NYC, I was struck with how the Zeitgest Movement seems to revive elements of original 19th Century European Communism, with a kind of materialist fundamentalism and a bit of naivete about human nature.

Personally I believe that a meaningful transformation of civilization can only begin with a deep paradigm shift that includes an acceptance of the dimensions of psychic reality suppressed by modern civilization, and integration of consciousness as the primary element in our experience. The shift is from quantity - any purely material or statistical yardsticks - to quality, to values of a different sort. The concept that indigenous cultures are poor, for instance, is entirely the imposition of a certain mindset that has become fixated on quantities and types of possessions as how you determine the wealth or the value of any particular community. Read Robert Lawlor's Voices of the First Day, Marshall Sahlins, Pierre Claustres' Society Against the State, Bookchin's Ecology of Freedom, etc, etc, for a different realization.

This doesn't mean that I don't think "resources" need to be protected or held as a sacred trust for future generations (though I wouldn't use that word as it still presupposes the weird and wrong idea that they are "resources" for us humans to use, rightly or wrongly, but as we see fit). I believe that Buckminster Fulller's approach is a huge part of the solution - minimizing and eventually (quickly) eliminating all waste (since nature doesn't produce waste, there is no reason we should either), maximizing efficiency, doing less with more until finally we can do all with nothing (what all of the hubbub around "free energy" or drawing upon the structure of the vacuum points toward). ...

The Venus Project, from what I have gathered, looks at the religious impulse in a condescending and negative way, as something a truly "rational" society would overcome. I actually think the opposite. I think we will instead access the aboriginal understanding of the sacred nature of every aspect of our life and our being, "the ever-present origin" that is available to us forever now. Whether our future realization of this sacred nature of being takes new institutional forms or not does not concern me at present - the old religious forms have become obsolete and dangerous as they keep people in separation. Sometimes I wonder if a new religion, perhaps something without need of form or uncodifiable as it is a felt awareness rather than a set of precepts, of creative freedom in alignment with source -- the pure creative freedom of the free-willing consciousness that is at play with the cosmos, that is us as we discover ourselves in it - is what is on our horizon.

Anyway, drifted off topic perhaps, but I believe The Zeitgeist Venus amalgam is important as it is opening a lot of people to gaps in our civilization's paradigm, while it has real gaps of its own.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Peter Joseph bans BrentonEccles

User BrentonEccles indefinitely suspended still 04/Apr/2010

---

"Brenton Eccles pulls a huge U turn on the ZM forum and retracts everything he said here as a personal trauma he was experiencing, and asks his members for forgiveness. Bravo." - anticultist

---

"I've been thinking about how to address what I've done, and though this thread that I post may come across as plain - I'm going to attempt to be sharp and specific so that what I say does not end up being taken off in 95957395357 directions.

As many of you would now well know, in the past week I've been involved in an incident completely unacceptable for someone who is known and seen to be a representative of this Movement.

I engaged in aggressive attacks not only on members whose respect had long been given to me, but upon the integrity of the structure within The Zeitgeist Movement itself - something that has proven detrimental to both myself, and many others concerned.

Certain words I used, specifically the words 'sensitive screenshots' led some to believe that I had been collating private information with the intent of using it for detrimental or covert means. This was, and is not, the case. I can see, however, how those words would be clearly taken in such light - nothing of which I referred to as 'sensitive information' involved any private areas of the site.

I know that I, as one of the members who has been here since day one, should know better - and though I am not going to attempt excuse myself entirely from my actions I would like to highlight that I've basically had the worst 7 days of my life.

The issues in that regard are very sensitive and deeply personal, but for the sake of avoiding this being labelled a cloak: if someone wants me to announce the issues here that have affected me beyond my own coping mechanisms - feel free. I'll be happy to answer (but if you'd like discretion you're welcome to e-mail me at laglegur@gmail.com), and hopefully in understanding that you'll all consider that sometimes (yes, just sometimes) we all push over and forget that it's easy just to turn the computer (or iPhone, as it be) off and seek solace in one's loved ones for solving problems as opposed to letting loose on all the work I've done and betraying many of the people that have trusted and worked with me for quite a period of time.

I am not naive to the reality that I, having been spreading this information for a long time, should know better than to feed the very forces that go to no end to smear us - often without considerations as to what we're actually all about and certainly without understanding our pivotal train of thought.

But, sometimes, sometimes, sometimes - some of us will make a big mistake.

I've likely left out a lot of stuff that's necessary to mention, but I want to stop here and give those who have merit to do so a chance to add their voice in the way that they feel necessary. I've done a rather extreme thing, though it is an inner scandal which can be overcome, and I don't expect anything of any of you - I think that's only right.

Considering that I was about to have specific tasks delegated to me, it looks like I have a lot of ground to recover - please work with me in doing so.

And if you don't want to, that's fine too.

I feel absolutely sick to my stomach writing this thread, for an issue I know didn't have to be one had I kept myself in check and remained level-headed. Nevertheless, it has happened - I hope I can move on with you all. I can't imagine stopping this work now, for controversy." 
- Brenton Eccles

Roxanne Meadows says Jacque Fresco isn't a Genius