Monday, 24th March, 1997

My dear Khalid,

Introduction

I am sure that you enjoyed all the "humans";  today I have to begin with a general  introduction. The reason why I explain everything in detail is because we progressively  have to get to
Human Intellect and Reason, then to Human Property, then to Human Intellectual Property. Then we will hook up with Human Rights; hence, Intellectual Property Rights, which, as we have seen, have very little to do with Historic Rights.

In fact, not that we are very special lovers of "facts", it is a fact that the billions of "human beings", who toil and vegetate on this planet, urgently need "rights", "human rights"; this is what "democracy", the government of the people, by the people and for the people, stands for; on the other hand, at the current level of industrial and technological development, modern "post-industrial" society desperately needs Intellectual Property Rights. Nonetheless, we,  in our Science  a n d  Philosophy, do not need such  funny things. 

Neither by right nor by wrong, nor by neither right nor wrong, do we need any "rights" whatsoever; especially not those invented by the various ruling classes across the ages.

But, because we live in the Patria,  therefore, we have to protect ourselves, and because you want to write on the topic, in these lectures we will treat selected aspects which concern the Intellect, Property and Right, within the framework of our present capitalist system. Also, in our progressive description of the wonderful "Human Being" it is quintessential to analyse the problems which result as a consequence of Global Intellectual Private Property Rights.

Again:  What Are We Thinking About ?

But before we investigate patriarchal concepts, I first want us to get clear in our minds, what exactly we are talking about. Only then we can identify with precision what we are criticizing. Otherwise, we will get confused, and will treat certain concepts alien to us, as if they were our own mental products.

The Bezug

Thus, let us continue there where we have left our discussion in the last lecture, with certain aspects of the explanation of "and"  a n d  " a n d " . This Diagory has a lot to do with the Intellect, with Thinking Labour, with Intellectual Labour.

What does "a n d" relate, interrelate ?
That "a n d" interrelates at all !

Now, within the framework of the "a n d" discussion; we have to affirm what exactly we relate, interrelate, what we conjoin with "a n d", in order to focus "a n d" itself in a scientific-philosophical limelight.

As We have explained before, We SET Cosmos, Einai, Nothing. We also SET the logical RELATION, the Bezug.  For reasons, which we will explain later, we use the German word "Bezug" instead of "Relation", which for us, in any case, means the same thing that is being analysed. Hence, instead of asking: What is the relation between Cosmos  a n d  Einai, between Action  a n d Thinking, between Being  a n d  Becoming?, we simply ask: What is the Bezug between them?

The Bezug:  Cosmos  a n d  Einai

The Mental "Jailhouse Rock"

Now, a very important philosophic reflection. In a certain sense, when we think or say anything, we are locked in the sphere of Thought. Even if you speak about a "dog", you never say something which is identical with the  "external real" cosmic dog. You always use a word, a concept, or a thought, which expresses "dog", which is an intellectual abstraction. To the very physical, substantial dog you do not get. Hence, whatever we discuss here, it does not leave the sphere of our own thinking, with which we were socialized in bourgeois capitalist society, which imprinted its own interests and values in our very "soul". We neither become the "dog" nor do we express a "real" dog in our minds; we express the use- and exchange-values which capitalism wants us to internalize and eternalize.

Towards Thought-In-Itself  &  Thought-For-Itself:
Intellect  a n d  Reason

This seems simple logic, but it forms the quintessential core of the  problem  related to  thought, intellect or property rights.
The question is: What intellectual products are copyrighted?  If they are knowledge and not tangible products, hence how does a capitalist appropriate abstract thought, knowledge or  mind-things? What is the difference between Intellectual Thought, which only approximates Cosmic things, and Intellectual Property, which can be appropriated, and which can be converted into Capital and Profit? How are Thoughts or Mind-Things being converted into exchange-values, and finally into surplus value and capital accumulation? Of what is Thought composed, and which elements are being transformed into intellectual wares and goods?

Can Thinking About Thought, Reason, be appropriated? Or does Reason, Vernunft, Capital itself appropriate? Who ushered in the Age of Reason, of Capital? And Why? Why do physical and intellectual labourers never reason? Why is it imperative that they should never ever reason? What is the current mind-control campaign and mind-research all  about? Why is smoking, which was fostered for centuries, now suddenly prohibited, and why suddenly drug-scooping is in, is cool, is on the order of the day? Why Prozac and Ritalin? What has all this to do with the exploitation of the Intellect, of Intellectual Labour?

Einai-In-Itself, Intellect, and Technical Know-How

What is "know-how"? Technical know-how? Intellectual know-how? Intellectual Labour Know-How? Generally we have  no problem  in the understanding of  physical know-how, for example,  how a South African farm labourer swings an axe technically and scientifically. But the moment when we talk about it, when we ourselves do not swing the axe like a robot, that is, thoughtless, then we leave the pure action, the pure cosmic level, and we find ourselves in the intellectual degree, in a theoretical debacle, in the field of knowledge about technical know-how.

Hence the question arises, how can we talk about something whose action is purely physical, purely cosmic? Worse even, "is" such a thing? "Are" pure things? Are they at all?  Can we ever be concrete? Can we become concretely in any discussion?
Is it not sheer nonsense, when somebody attacks theory or philosophy, and demands a concrete discussion about concrete things, to adjust the discussion to concrete facts? This is the case in so many daily discussions with Tom, Dick and Harry. Into them were inculcated a hellish fear of mental abstraction, to think, they do not even know that you cannot become concrete in thinking, only in action, and even in this, action is always accompanied by thought. It is not even sure that a monkey acts thoughtless, that is, with his brain out of function, and only his hands fingering chaotically about.

Hence, we are faced with the dilemma: How does the Bezug between Action  a n d  Thought exist? How does "a n d" exist? Our socialization process always stresses the concrete separated from the abstract, but it never underlines the "a n d", the relation, the Bezug. For this reason we only believe in ourselves as "Beings", as "Human Beings";  now and then we talk about  our "Human Existence",  but as something separated from the "Human Being"; we would never say that we exist "Human Being  a n d  Existence"; always we say "We ARE Human Beings"! Well, fine!

Everyday Formal-Logical Action and Thought: Only Positive Action

All our Action, dualistically cut off from our Thought, and all our Thought, formal logically transported on high, into the ivory tower, ripped from our Action, are seen as two entities having their own separated lifes. The only relation between body and soul, is that the first is the grave of the other, is that the soul needs purification, must go to Nirvana or Heaven; and that the body, like Mother Nature, must rot here on Earth.

Similarly, we have Rest, Motion;  good, bad;  correct, false;  man, woman;  with no relation between or among them;  the only relation permitted is a thing-relation, a non-relation, an exchange-relation, the relation Capital and Labour, and the only PLUS  universally accepted is the Accumulation of Capital, of Exchange Value, of Plus-valia, of Sur-Plus Value.

No member of the toiling masses ever is taught about this "non-relation";  and if anybody dares to do it, then he or she is
a priori "obsolete", a "communist" or a "terrorist";  if any student nowadays talks about "class struggle" , bourgeois and proletariat, even of "capitalism" at Oxford, Harvard or the Sorbonne, then she or he are simply crazy, mentally retarded, fit for a Ritalin or Prozac cure, fit for the madhouse.

Directly, in the next lecture, we will further explain the Diagory:  Cosmos  a n d   Einai ; also the dialogical elements of Einai: Intellect  a n d  Reason.

This is enough for tonight, have  a "good"  Rest !!!

LOVE,

FRANZ.

continue !