Wendell Berry Quote:
"I do have an interest in this book, which is for sale. (If you have bought it, dear reader, I thank you. If you have borrowed it, I honor your frugality. If you have stolen it, may it add to your confusion.) Most of the sale price pays the publisher for paper, ink, and other materials, for editorial advice, copyediting, design, advertising (I hope), and marketing. I get between 10 and 15 percent (depending on sales) for arranging the words on the pages.
As I understand it, I am being paid only for my work in arranging the words; my property is that arrangement. The thoughts in this book, on the contrary, are not mine. They came freely to me, and I give them freely away. I have no "intellectual property," and I think that all claimants to such property are thieves."
"I do have an interest in this book, which is for sale. (If you have bought it, dear reader, I thank you. If you have borrowed it, I honor your frugality. If you have stolen it, may it add to your confusion.) Most of the sale price pays the publisher for paper, ink, and other materials, for editorial advice, copyediting, design, advertising (I hope), and marketing. I get between 10 and 15 percent (depending on sales) for arranging the words on the pages.
As I understand it, I am being paid only for my work in arranging the words; my property is that arrangement. The thoughts in this book, on the contrary, are not mine. They came freely to me, and I give them freely away. I have no "intellectual property," and I think that all claimants to such property are thieves."
posted by trawlerman at 5:31 PM
4 Comments:
I agree!
what if you're not intellectual like myself? hmm... i smell a rat!
I'm wondering what exactly is the difference between 'arranged words' and 'thoughts'? Sounds like one in the same to me. I'm sure there's an answer that involves moving objects around under shells.
Berry and the like seem to spend an extremely large amount of energy to redefine terms to the confusion of all involved.
Matt,
Let's put it this way...
In a recent blog post, Doug Wilson wrote, "All law falls under the category of imposed morality."
In that proposition, he has used an arrangement of words all his own. That arrangement belongs to him (in a sense), and if I wish to use those words my self, in that same arrangement, then I ought to give Wilson the credit. Despite this, though, I could definitely argue and convey the same idea ("thought") without using that same "arrangement of words." I could use my own arrangement. If I were a considerate person, and Wilson's quote were the first place that I had ever come upon this idea, I ought to give him credit whether I use his arrangement or not. Nevertheless, the thought does not "belong" to Doug Wilson.
The same with one of my favorite theologians, James Jordan. Jordan points out many things in scripture that seem like original insights to him, but, truly, there is nothing new under the sun. Whatever insights Jordan delivers, they do not belong to him, nor should he be allowed or encouraged to receive some sort of payment or royal acknowledgement every time one of "his" ideas is used. (please note that I am not trying to argue that we should not give credit where credit is due)
Otherwise, there could be no progress, because I could not use his "thoughts" (and remix them, so to speak), without his express permission.
We take for granted the trinitarian formulations of the early councils, yet the formula of Chalcedon or such is not the "intellectual property" of those fathers. The "arrangement of words" in the creeds were penned by men in council (and, I ought to add, belong to the church, their heirs), and this should be acknowledged.
But the "thoughts" expressed in those creeds are not the "intellectual property" of any individual, unless you want to argue that the truth of the trinity is so bound to, say, the Athanasian Creed, that such a truth cannot be expressed in any other words whatsoever. Well, then, the Scriptures fail.
That's my quick argument.
As I was writing this, Abigail noticed and pointed out that I should look at your new post, because you write a little bit more about this.
So, I just did.
I understand your charge of "gnositicism," but I don't agree with it, as I hope I've shown above. Yes, an "arrangement of words" is inseparably tied to the "thoughts" expressed, but that that particular "arrangement of words" is the be-all and end-all of any "thought."
Yes, thoughts can only be understood and communicated through the symbolic language of words (or actions), but I do think that it is an error to then reject any kind of "ethereal" thoughts. Can you touch logic? Can you read logic. No. Logic is intangible. Yet logic can be expressed and explained in words. Can you touch "agrarianism," for example? No. Yes, the concept relates to so many physical and verbal realities, but that does not make it cease to be a concept.
Anyhow, I don't think that Berry is setting up the strict divorce that you think he is.
Definition:
"Intellectual Property means any ideas, inventions, technology, biological organisms, software, creative expression (and derivatives thereof), in which a proprietary interest may be claimed including, but not limited to, patents, copyrights, trademarks, data sets, know-how and biological materials."
Let's say that J.I. Packer writes a book on "Knowing God." Packer can in no way claim that he can claim a proprietary interest in the idea that the holy spirit is a comforter. Yet he can and does justly hold such a claim in relation to the specific arrangement of his words on a page.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
-john.
Post a Comment
<< Home