Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Peter Joseph[Zeitgeist] quote:

He does come out with some good quotes.

"Debate is really an infantile disposition - i think discussion,open discussion is what we need to engage in".

This was quoted from an interview and it was an opening statement so it is not quoted out of context.

Anyway debate is discussion and i fail to see why debate is infantile and discussion isnt but i feel that debate is considered infantile by Peter Joseph because it frequently involves opposing opinions and can involve disputes and disagreements.

A discussion does not have to feature opposing viewpoints so is the emphasis on discussion meant to imply that there is no debate or opposing viewpoints within the discussion/debate ?

This is obviously the case since the Zeitgeist organisation is promoting a cause and an ideology which to a large extent is inflexible/rigid much like any other ideology.

Reading between the lines it seems that in the context of the quote by Peter Joseph discussion does not feature opposing viewpoints and disputes etc etc particularly if its open discussion that is supportive of the views promoted by Peter Joseph.Perhaps its opposing viewpoints that are infantile or perhaps it is disputing something that is infantile but i guess it all depends on what is being disputed.

You can dispute a small detail while being in broad agreement over a topic.

How open can the discussion be ?

I guess its infantile disputing Peter Joseph as Peter Joseph is an elevated intellectual.

Not a quote as such but part of the ethos of Zeitgeist is that corruption is inevitable within a monetary system.

That much is very true but it seems to me that its common sense to curtail corruption within a monetary system before it becomes endemic as it is now instead of abolishing the monetary system but perhaps i am missing the point ??

If there is dishonesty or deception or a slant and a hidden agenda or whatever i will notice it.


  1. no. "debate" = arguments to win. "discussion" = sharing of ideas without an interest in an persuasive outcome

  2. I see what you mean about arguing to win unless you just want to win the argument with fact rather than wanting to win because you are self absorbed.

    Everyone wants to win a debate if they are honest but its not the idea of debating that is infantile but its how you conduct yourself within the debate that decides if it is childish or infantile.I dont think being competitive is a negative thing on that basis as PJ was implying that competitiveness is infantile .

    Competition is a positive thing as it drives things forwards but there is always a duality with everything.

    Theres something odd about discussing/debating what a dicussion/debate is

  3. In a "debate", the opposing parties begin with a prepared disposition in an attempt to outwit an opposition; regardless of their collective ignorance(i.e. There is no cooperation in research and logic). There is no forgiveness for logical fallacies and ambiguous or loaded language. There is no attempt to find common ground and learn from others. The participants assume the conclusion before a word is ever spoken. This is different from a lecture by the way; which is a presentation of a particular topic, resulting from an accumulation of past research and discussions.

    In a "discussion", participants assume a degree of ignorance and understand the limitations in communication and thinking. Critical thought is the recognition of our inevitable "stupid" ideas; filtering by deduction and error. Where one and all parties value listening more than speaking; recognizing that being wrong is a good thing since, progress has taken place. Finding the most accurate empathy for others is the function of wisdom. Where one can most effectively relate with the "group mind" and where a synergistic "group mind" can most efficiently emerge out of the relative ignorance(our true "enemy"), at that time.