by Brian Lomas
I'd just watched a video on tou tube about the ZM and Venus Project splitting and was disappointed to say the least. The part that bothered me was tht it seemed a battle of ego's about being credited with originating ideas or not.
While I respect both Mr Fresco and Mr Joseph both for their efforts and committment, I believe that the new more mature society that both these movements are trying to propose must become cognizant of intelectual property issues as well as physical systems. While we still believe that ideas are our own and not just ideas that "we" have resonated with, both these organizations will struggle with this kind of petty argument.
The problem is not just a small thing. This extends way beyond this 1 issue. If I asked you who invented the light bulb? You might jump in and say Eddison. Some might say Swann. It is in fact irrelevant (unless of course your future earnings depend on establishing a patent). The nature of ideas and thinking itself need to be reevaluated.
If Peter Joseph wants to be remembered for making a film that raised awarness and led to social change, then we must also recognise that we are, all of us, also seperate individual ego's. If he believes that its his ideas, his movement etc, then he would be claiming a form of ownership or intellectual property. He (in this view) would be remembered in History in the same way that we remember Napoleon, Socrates, Isaac Newton etc. This way of thinking is an ego driven illusion.
What i'm trying to say is that our view of people and therefore history is of individuals whom we label as great, or imposing, or radical, or murderous.
By themselves these people are nothing. Newton could not have formulated the laws of motion without Galileo having first stumbled upon these same notions. Newton merely explicated and formalised an existing idea.
The roots of this thinking go back numerous generations but are perhaps formalised best by Rene Descarte. "cogito ero sum". His metaphysical formulation became the highest authority for certainty. The "I think" became the standard for science in that the "I" became the special subject.
It is just this "I" and its standing that must be examined if "we" are to mature as a species. In truth every thought that i think has come from others. If rational thoughts arise from syllogism, and these are made from language, then the source of our language is also therefore the source of rational thought. I learned language through my environment so all my ideas are from that environment. The source of the "I" is the "we" so we (as a whole) came up with the laws of motion. The "I" called Issac Newton is a specific instance of a more fundamental "we."
Peter Jospeh is just a specific instance of the "we" that created him. By created here i mean his language (English), his education (all his teachers), his beliefs (parents influences etc). What is important is the ideas themselves. Owning an idea is a primitive as the obscolete money system.
Nature is symbiotic and so are "we". The "I" is a narrow illusion .
While I respect both Mr Fresco and Mr Joseph both for their efforts and committment, I believe that the new more mature society that both these movements are trying to propose must become cognizant of intelectual property issues as well as physical systems. While we still believe that ideas are our own and not just ideas that "we" have resonated with, both these organizations will struggle with this kind of petty argument.
The problem is not just a small thing. This extends way beyond this 1 issue. If I asked you who invented the light bulb? You might jump in and say Eddison. Some might say Swann. It is in fact irrelevant (unless of course your future earnings depend on establishing a patent). The nature of ideas and thinking itself need to be reevaluated.
If Peter Joseph wants to be remembered for making a film that raised awarness and led to social change, then we must also recognise that we are, all of us, also seperate individual ego's. If he believes that its his ideas, his movement etc, then he would be claiming a form of ownership or intellectual property. He (in this view) would be remembered in History in the same way that we remember Napoleon, Socrates, Isaac Newton etc. This way of thinking is an ego driven illusion.
What i'm trying to say is that our view of people and therefore history is of individuals whom we label as great, or imposing, or radical, or murderous.
By themselves these people are nothing. Newton could not have formulated the laws of motion without Galileo having first stumbled upon these same notions. Newton merely explicated and formalised an existing idea.
The roots of this thinking go back numerous generations but are perhaps formalised best by Rene Descarte. "cogito ero sum". His metaphysical formulation became the highest authority for certainty. The "I think" became the standard for science in that the "I" became the special subject.
It is just this "I" and its standing that must be examined if "we" are to mature as a species. In truth every thought that i think has come from others. If rational thoughts arise from syllogism, and these are made from language, then the source of our language is also therefore the source of rational thought. I learned language through my environment so all my ideas are from that environment. The source of the "I" is the "we" so we (as a whole) came up with the laws of motion. The "I" called Issac Newton is a specific instance of a more fundamental "we."
Peter Jospeh is just a specific instance of the "we" that created him. By created here i mean his language (English), his education (all his teachers), his beliefs (parents influences etc). What is important is the ideas themselves. Owning an idea is a primitive as the obscolete money system.
Nature is symbiotic and so are "we". The "I" is a narrow illusion .
Anyway, I do acknowledge that he is doing a great job and if we can get some change going, I personally will remember ...