Zeitgeist Addendum**must see**

[Reveling John]

Originally Posted by elirien

Very true all of the above except again money as a media for transaction. I still think the problem is with the wrong interpretation of the system. Using resource not as resources but as symbols for virtual assets or as you above mentioned as symbols for blind submission is the problem. Capital became faith years ago first when the priest dudes began collecting gold for their "church". It's a long subject which I won't go into here. But as I stated before the only problem I have with your research is that you see money as what it is defined by the federal bank of america. Money is not only that.

I suppose this is simply a matter of difference in opinion since we have not experienced the society where a genuine attempt to use money simply as a means of resource representation and management was made. Maybe a fair and just society that uses money as it's transactional medium is possible. I don't think that money or currency is bad, anymore than religioun is bad. I'm trying to emphasise the observation that in our history and in our current situation the economic market has been used as tool for control, oppression and the preservation of ignorance. Is that the only way which it can be applied to our society? No, I don't think so. Is it inherently designed for that purpose? Yes, I believe so.

I understand that you have choosen not to put this polar judgement on money and I respect that and feel as well that the judgment is not helpful. At the same I would really like everyone to get into the habit of asking themselves, "Why money?" Money can be a dirge to humankind or an enhancement, and it has certainly been both of those things, but so few people ever get the chance to ask the simple question, "Is money necessary?"

Is money necessary?

Thank you for your posts John. I'm sure we will arrive at a conclusion in a short time. Maybe we should gather these in a text file and use them on the forums we visit, blogs etc. I2ll be over at your new post later on in the day (got to work occasionally ).

Be good all of you.

I feel you clearly and resoundingly. Maybe a text compilation of many of this forum's topics would be a useful resource, so yeah, that's an awesome idea. On that matter of reaching a "conclusion" I prefer to side with Terrence McKenna:

We don't need any gurus here, we don't need any Laying Down of the Law. Anybody who tells you they have a clue as to what's happening should be suspect for mental illness and delusions of grandeur. The thought is (and I haven't said this yet but this is the conclusion from all of this): culture is an effort to satisfy this weird desire human beings have to close off experience, to live with closure, to force closure. That's why cultural trips are so bizarre, why they don't make sense to anybody but the Witoto or the Waorani or the Americans or the Japanese; if you're not inside the culture it seems crazy. The cultures don't make sense because they're not trying to make sense. What they're trying to do is produce closure, which then somehow makes a human being, who is living in the light of closure, a more manipulateable, a more malleable, a lesser thing.

So if the experience of the Twentieth Century didn't do it for you, if psychedelics didn't do it for you, I don't know what could do it for you! The message coming back at all of us is: live without closure. That's the honest position, given that you are some kind of a talking monkey, some kind of a primate, some kind of creature, on a planet, in an animal body, incarnate in a time and space. In the face of that, life without closure is the only kind of intellectual honesty there is.
- McKenna speaking at the Wetlands Preserve, NYC
July 28, 1998

Great Love,
John