“We” isn’t an advanced form of “I”
by Jon Rappoport
July 13, 2014
In a BBC documentary, “Google and the World Brain,” the issue of author copyright is explored. Google has scanned and published out-of-print books that are still covered by copyright.
Interviewed, Kevin Kelly, the co-founder of Wired, makes a startling remark. In his view the whole issue of copyright is archaic. He explains that all authors draw their ideas from previous authors and therefore don’t own their own ideas.
It’s wonderful to witness such bloviating on the cusp of the New Civilization, in which “you didn’t build that” is taken to unprecedented levels.
Kelly should start a publishing firm; all his authors would work for free. After all, nothing is original, nothing is new, and these writers are merely rearranging other people’s words.
You might be surprised at how many people actually believe this tripe Kelly is passing along.
It’s part of the vastly expanding operation aimed at the individual.
The “modern” position is, we’re all one great big group.
Rimbaud was just redoing Shelley. Dylan Thomas was adding a few exhibitionist touches to Shakespeare, who was aping Sophocles. Plato was mimicking generations of Egyptian high priests. Socrates was staging dialogues based on arguments between cave men.
If we could climb into a time machine, we could travel back to the age of the Neanderthals and see that Neanderthals were stealing thoughts after listening to what ants and gorillas and cabbages were saying.
The individual imagines and creates? Ho-ho-ho. Ridiculous.
Yes, it’s all spiritual collectivism, and we’re melting down into one cosmic goo-glob, and it’s marvelous.
“It’s all information” is the code phrase, as if all data are like all other data, and therefore diminished—in which case “information is power” means degraded and shrunken power.
The move to wipe out the entire concept of the individual and erase it from human consciousness is a propaganda op. It is far easier to wield control over a group.
“We” isn’t an advanced form of “I.”
Here is where things are heading: “I/we are together.” Then: “We are together.” Then: “We.” Then: Nothing. Oblivion.
The failure to see this is a direct consequence of the failure of a person to know he is an individual.
Free and independent, despite all indications to the contrary.
The psychology of the entangled individual can take an unlimited number of forms. But the essence of the problem revolves around hemmed-in freedom.
It doesn’t revolve around the “glories” of fitting in.
The US Constitution didn’t invent freedom. It tried to deal with that eternal truth, as it would be affected by government.
The ancient story of the Tower of Babel is an early propaganda op. The one universal language was destroyed, as punishment for trying to reach heaven, and therefore, new languages proliferated.
And the problem with that? The collective was destroyed. Power was decentralized. That’s a problem?
In other words, the ancient legend of the Tower was inside out.
All central authority, secular or religious, preaches collectivism. That is its primary weapon, its primary means of mind control.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
One problem with copyrights today is that companies are gobbling up ideas and seeking control just as agribusiness did to the individual and family farm years ago. In patents, Monsanto is doing similarly. Our discussion needs to include this reality to be complete.
LOL! That’s what copyrights are FOR! It’s not a problem. If YOU personally wish to capitalize…patent YOUR idea.
You can see the subtle downplaying of the individual and the push for collectivism in some leading new books about the New Economy, the Sharing Economy. and Collaborative Commons. The potential is there to use these concepts to develop individual imagination, or to create a society of robots.
I think there is more to the Tower of Babel story than meets the eye. For instance, Hebrew was originally only used by religious scribes as the “language of God”. Those “is the know” know it is a cut down star language. Indeed versions of the full star language were found on metal plates (equivalent of our DVD’s?) under the Pyramid of Giza and are housed somewhere in the United States today.
Steven Strong has discovered an ancient pictorial aboriginal language in Australia which is, arguably, the oldest known. The point being, if things were “organised” there would likely be one language and that language would be pictorial if it was to be “universal”. Thus, the Tower of Babel story tell me that elements of that time’s “New World Order” created multiple languages to enable confusion and chaos between disparate groups. They, could then manufacture a “common message” all would be forced to turn for guidance.
99% of today’s problems are COMMUNICATION related; leveraging omissions, falsehoods and exploitation of ignorance.
Well… If We get rid of the need for exchange to survive (money), copyright will indeed become antiquated. There is no motive to steal Others’ works. If found claiming anOthers work, One will lose status. All work will be credited to the One who created it. This includes all the work presently claimed by corporations (that exist ONLY to make a profit, and with no profit to be had, will vanish).
But as long as money is being used, copyright is important.
And yes, the Tower of Babel seems to be a case of Ea (Enki) messing with languages to strip the “new world order” of An-En (Enlil) of its centralized power. It was a blessing to Humanity, not a punishment.
Links for the reader to a solution to the present “new world order,” corporations, and the need to exchange to survive:
http://stateofglobe.com/2014/03/07/liberty-and-the-american-way/
http://stateofglobe.com/2014/07/06/what-would-it-be-like-living-on-this-planet/
♥♥♥
“ALL money systems promote the most psychopathic to the top of the money/power heap – THEY will do ANYTHING to get there.”
“The love of money is the root of all evil; remove the soil in which the root grows…”
“If the universe is made of mostly “dark” energy…can We use it to run Our cars?”
“If You want peace, take the PROFIT out of war.”
So let’s say you create a clean, efficient motor vehicle. What’s to stop the person with many more resources from taking it apart, figuring out how it works, and reproducing at a much better exchange rate simply because they have the means? You may be credited for the invention but that doesn’t mean people will acquire it from you if it’s more efficient to acquire elsewhere.
I’m assuming that we’re bartering here. How is that different than using money? Money is a symbol of said goods, except easily transportable, and is only bad when it’s not backed up by a finite resource that can be accounted for, as in the American fiat system that is backed by thin air.
Your idea sounds aligned with the Venus Project ideal of a moneyless, resource based economy that is run by a non-existent, benevolent Gaia machine that will dole out resources fairly/appropriately at all times via an infallible distribution algorithm.
If this is you, then this is dangerous thinking, in my opinion. Such a project would take massive amounts of funding and resources to be overhauled and put in place. Who controls the majority of money and resources again? Somebody would have to program this machine and if the PTB are the ones footing the bill, do you honestly think that they would suddenly change their pace and create something that would take their feet out from under them? People would still have to go through the faceless, centralized, intermediary arbiter of all goods. This is merely exchanging one form of collectivism for another, only this time you deal with an “infallible” machine when you have issues instead of a system of humans.
I can think of no other way to implement such a scheme other than to go through the current monetary system. How else?
If I’m mistaken then please forgive my rant. But do elaborate if possible.
I think You are stuck in the scarcity paradigm, where if You figure out something, You hide it until patented, and then try to make money on it. Or worse, the company You work for does.
In abundance, You don’t need anyOne to acquire things from You. You can live as richly as You choose without having to exchange anything.
No. No barter (again, an accounting mechanism of the energy We input). Rather than buying and selling, robots and Those who love to do necessary/needed work. Products can be ordered over the interweb and delivered, no exchange needed.
I am very different from Venus, which has a central governing body of programmer-priests (though Jacque does not call them that). Rather, I offer emergence, stigmergy, as the governing factor. No One doles anything.
I agree that Venus sucks. They want to relegate Human input to preferences.
And very little funding will be needed once free energy is flowing, removing most of the cost of things.
Perhaps You might want to read some of My articles?
http://stateofglobe.com/2014/03/07/liberty-and-the-american-way/
http://stateofglobe.com/2014/07/06/what-would-it-be-like-living-on-this-planet/
http://stateofglobe.com/2014/07/22/the-playing-field-of-consciousness/
♥♥♥
“ALL money systems promote the most psychopathic to the top of the money/power heap – THEY will do ANYTHING to get there.”
“The love of money is the root of all evil; remove the soil in which the root grows…”
“If the universe is made of mostly “dark” energy…can We use it to run Our cars?”
“If You want peace, take the PROFIT out of war.”
Here is the issue, AS, and I can summarise it in one word – ATTITUDE. Attitude has made the world what it is and will make the world what it will be.
Don’t get me wrong; I am certainly not against you. In a world without attitude, your suggestions/recommendations are entirely plausible. But this is a world driven by attitudes and attitudes, for the most part, are impossible to change. That is where your “solution” collapses.
Watch out for my blog post after next (“Beliefs and UFO’s”). It will simply be titled “Attitude”.
Truly, I don’t grasp what attitude has to do with the fact that We have better ways of solving Our issues that a system that promotes psychopaths into power. We use money to facilitate getting needed items to Those in need – accounting for Our energy input – and to motivate People to do needed work They don’t want to do.
Free energy makes accounting for it moot, and robots remove the need to force, coerce or bribe (pay) People to get needed work done.
These are all functions and mechanics of foundational economics. What’s attitude got to do with it?
Sort of funny given that the system which imposes collectivism also regulates intellectual property. So I guess “we” can have its uses in circumstances that suit a particular “I.”
For example…the mechinations of the Democrat party.
I’ve had quite a few discussions on copyright and what goes with it. And some of the abovementioned arguments certainly came along.
Anyway, I was not able to caliber the clarity about the related collectivism in the way I see it done here.
This is a true eye-opener on the issue.
Everywhere I see the swarming folks, high-minded, of the best intentions often, seemingly, who perpetuate the nullifying of the worth of art, therewith the artist, altogether.
They don’t know what the are at, usually. They are a trampling herd.
Nothing is ever to be an entity of its own; only technichal inventions count; there are only values and qualities that can be measured by machines.
We are just ants in a hive. Then: Where is the queen?
Here I dare fill in a little anecdote that got into me today.
Konfucius meets Nietzsche and says (in German, as was my spontaneous imagination, southern German at that): “Grüß Gott!” (“Greet God!” – as way of saying “Good day!” or “How are you?”)
Nietzsche then: “Are you kidding me? I should have thought that your understanding of language were beyond that.”
Isn’t “copyright” linked to inheritance and that which summarises the difference between the “haves” and “have nots”? Wars have been fought over not having 😉
@ OzzieThinker
Do You work for free, living off what You didn’t inherit, off what others give You from what they inherited or being paid for their work?
@Magnus
Correct. I write for “free”. Work for money but only work under the contract of “dual contributism”. I must get out precisely what I put in. Money is merely an inconvenience imposed on me by this stupid system. Those that don’t like my terms will not engage me. If no one engages me, I die. Simple. Personal development is the only purpose of life even though we are “units of experience” or “experiencers”.
I exist and you exist but “we” do not exist. When you say “We” should do something you are really saying that I should accept your goals as my own goals. As if I am too stupid to make my own decisions. The collectivization of America effort uses “experts” who speak the language of magic that the “dumb masses” are not smart enough to comprehend. Many people fall for this. They have been domesticated. They perceive it to be safer to let strangers make decisions for them. This way they can’t be help responsible for making mistakes. Little by little, the areas that the common man feels competent enough to take independent action is reduced. They are children who never want to grow up.
These “experts” are being paid by the owners of the planet. The goals of the owners are not my goals. I don’t acknowledge that the “owners” own me.
America is the land of the free and home of the brave where you can’t fight city hall. The obvious conflict in this statement is not so obvious to many. If you hold it to be self evident that governments are instituted to secure the unalienable rights of every man and woman then you are American. If you don’t, you’re not. Before the declaration of Independence the Europeans in the new world saw themselves as colonist. After they called themselves Americans. This is the meaning of “American”.
A crazy person or orphan can’t be allowed to die of starvation so “We” must make decisions for them. This legal doctrine is called “Parens Patriae”. By making the law so complicated that the average man becomes a child. This is the technical details of how they dis-empower you. If you don’t assert your rights they are deemed to be waived. If you don’t know how to assert your rights, you don’t have any. You are a child.
The author projects a simplistic and false dichotomy between the individual and the community.
He distorts the speech Obama gave by omitting the defining context.
Here is what Obama actually said:
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
Individualism without taking into account the collective setting in which individuals are born, raised (by the family collective), and educated (by the public collective usually), and finding their meaning within a culture which is a product not entire societies.
Such shallow individualism as the author projects is a fraudulent philosophical defense of selfishness.
The truth is that to make a strong individual, you need a strong community. The false choice between the individual (who, in isolation, is an abstraction experience existentially as alienated) and the communal is blind to the fact that individual values and communal values are mutually supporting, not enemies.
@ruffsoft
From YOUR quote of obummer speech…
“If you’ve got a business-you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen….”
Seems clear to me.
“Such shallow individualism as the author projects….selfishness.”
Spoken like an old jack boot. You don’t like individuals!
Your argument is ad hominem.
@ ruffsoft
“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
This is sheer rubbish. Some may have inherited or bought or stolen their business, others DID build it indeed.
I think You misunterstood Jon completely. Or You are distorting his words. Where does he say that man – especially the writer – is completely a lone wolf, born in the prairie, raising and educating himself, just by looking at the grass and the fowl, after having been (untimely?) ripped from his mothers womb?
Of course everybody is inculturated, learns from his forefathers, his peers, his parents, his teachers. His work is his anyway. I do not see where Jon foments the “false choice” You’re talking of.
You and I can agree to work together for a specific goal. Or not. The “we” that Jon is writing about is not a voluntary agreement that all parties are free to enter. It is the “we” that you value. That is, the individual is not competent to make decisions so the community must take action. If your neighbors don’t agree with the actions that the community decided then the options for your neighbors are: do what the community leaders and organizers say even if they disagree, or be put in a cage where they can be anally raped, or be killed by a SWAT team.
[…] “We” isn’t an advanced form of “I” […]
Rappoport: ….The ancient story of the Tower of Babel is an early propaganda op. The one universal language was destroyed, as punishment for trying to reach heaven, and therefore, new languages proliferated.
And the problem with that? The collective was destroyed. Power was decentralized. That’s a problem?….
Power was decentralised – to thousands of monolingual collectives! Thousands of smaller central powers!
The guy who earlier said you’ve created a false dichotomy is right. The universal ‘we’ has never existed, it conceivably never will, and there has never been an ‘I’ that hasn’t cared a lot about other I-s, various Kaspar Hausers and Jack the Rippers excepted.
There is independence of mind, and there is infantility. When people respond to the call to “Decentralise”, the separated individuals are always an easy prey for the gangs composed of those who ignored the call.
Now, what do You propose then?
Again, I don’t see that Jon wants to atomize the planet or create easy prey for the witty centralists of whom he (knowingly?) be a collaborator.
What about copyright? Should it be abolished or not?
And, if yes, for what purpose, for what benefit for whom?
Here – in the ever ingenious NYT – I found this nice piece with the charming title “The End of ‘Genius’ “.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-genius.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=1
It’s worth reading. Even copyright comes in.
“WHERE does creativity come from? For centuries, we’ve had a clear answer: the lone genius.”
A little further down the author continues:
“But the lone genius is a myth that has outlived its usefulness. (!!!!! – Exclamation marks by M.G.) Fortunately, a more truthful model is emerging: the creative network, as with the crowd-sourced Wikipedia or the writer’s room at “The Daily Show” or — the real heart of creativity — the intimate exchange of the creative pair, such as John Lennon and Paul McCartney and myriad other examples with which we’ve yet to fully reckon.”
And then, after quite some intelligent remarks, towards the end:
“At its heart, the creative process itself is about a push and pull between two entities, two cultures or traditions, or two people, or even a single person and the voice inside her head. Indeed, thinking itself is a kind of download of dialogue between ourselves and others. And when we listen to creative people describe breakthrough moments that occur when they are alone, they often mention the sensation of having a conversation in their own minds.”
Now this is really interesting. Even a single man or women is two, simply because in the creative process he or she talks to him- or herself or some mysterious alter ego, we download dialogues with (of?) all kinds of Jacks and Janes.
Ah, yeah, a painter who looks at the picture of others is sort of a thief, and every reader who writes himself a robber. At least if they sell “their” work, which logically can’t be their own, not giving the dough away to all quarters of the planet.
Now, I don’t know (I doubt it) if the author of the article plans to give away his forthcoming book for free, just deducing the cost for printing, binding and shipping. This would indeed be an alternative for solving the problem honorably and practically, wouldn’t it?
This bit of joking aside, I really don’t understand why Mr None Genius at the end praises pairs as best, after hailing (Internet-)crowds and large networks at the bginning.