Do you agree?
- I do.
- I do not.
On the one hand, the Internet has always had the wonderful potential of being a true philosopher’s paragon. On the other hand, the Internet is being manipulated and influenced by powerful and sinister groups of people with interests one can barely imagine. What started out as being a free exchange of ideas, opinions and just about anything you could imagine, has become, more and more so, just another tool for private capital interests and powerful political forces, most having not the slightest interest in allowing humanity to liberate itself from the shackles of what many call “historic necessicity” and what I would also call “those whose power is derived from the practices of divide and conquer”. Now, you may ask, what is this man getting at? What is the point (or just simply ‘get to the point’)?? Well, before I do allow me the right and obligation to qualify what I am about to relate herein; I am by all accounts a philosopher, mind you; not an accredited Professor of Philosophy at an established and reputable institution of higher learning, but simply a real life philosopher who on any fair weathered day might be found sitting out in public and holding a sign that invites the possibility of meaninggul, somewhat Socratic, philosophical discourse and exchange, furthermore I have been written-up in major publications and have had interviews aired on TV (numerous times throughout the past 18 years!), and I have two books to my name, the first of which is registered with the Office of Copyrights of The U.S. Library of Congress (Fenyo, Jean-Pierre Ady, “Infinitism: Secret Key to the Doors of Wisdom”, 1994) and upon which my revised version, my second book, is based (“The Most Important Thought”, Silver Aleph Books, 2004). And another qualifier: all statements I make herein are not with the intention to harm any persons or groups (organizations, institutions) who may truly be interested in furthering the evolution of humankind (from the homo-ignoramus most of us still are to the homo-sapiens we should already have been), but are intended to point out some serious threats to human progress that are probably both unintentional (systemic/phenomenal) and intentional (orchestrated/manipulated). That all said, here’s my point:
For over three years Wikipedia had, on its references for philosophy, philosophers and Infinity, my details, which describe me as a philosopher with an avid interest in promoting public philosophical discourse, open debate and free speech, mainly by the subsequent effects of applying the concept of infinity as a penultimate tool for the stimulation and instigation of open-minded, long-term oriented, deep thinking at all levels of society and for all humanity. The Wikipedia mention was fairly accurate and eventually found itself being repeated elsewhere on the Internet. Then, about two weeks ago, things started changing. When a colleague of mine, here at The Infinity Society (infinitysociety.org), tried to update the information it brought on a chain of events that have now made it almost certain that my mention will be deleted (erased, edited out of existence). I tried in vain to point out certain facts that, had the moderatoring editors(Wikipedians) been truly objective, would have prevented deletion. (Mind you, at the very time I am posting this, my mention and the long tract of arguments for and against it, are accesible at Wikipedia > Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo < search). Which brings me to my point; Wikipedia, inspite of some recent controvery aired/published in the mass media news, has become the most powerful source of information for students, academics and the general public, and any clever interest group, with significant capital, time, connections, vettedness (if that’s a word…), with sinister intentions is now able to bias the type, manner, style, content and sub-content of what appears on Wikipedia so as to exploit, in the good name of informational objectivity and neutrality, the trust of those who seek its content under the assumption that it is truly fair and objective, without political or social bias. Both the new right and the radical left, but more so the former than the latter, have vested interests in controlling public perception of history and contemporary society as it stand to be represented on Wikipedia! In my own case I was able to provide three things that should have worked in my favor; 1) evidence of having been published, 2) articles and other information that state that I am philosopher (from years before Wikipedia ever existed) and 3) evidence that my life experience and works are beyond average and worthy of mention. Now, Wikipedia has this odd policy of not publishing original works, which at first glance is a fair policy considering what would happen to its database and servers if everyone, every wild-eyed frustrated egotist with nothing new or genuine to communicate, could simply use Wikipedia to publish their otherwise previously (publicly) unpublished ideas, views, what not, etc… But what happens when someone has been published in public, has had some degree of notability and fame already, and their ideas have been touched upon and mentioned in the media??? Just because those ideas are in a sense still original (yet already exposed and critiqued in public media) does not mean that the person whose ideas they are should not be made referable on Wikipedia. Rudy Rucker is a Professor of Mathematics, well known for his book “Infinity And The Mind”, which, by the way, not once mentions the mass psychological implications of mass infinity (concept) awareness (which is my hallmark), and he is mentioned on Wikipedia, but he too has original ideas. Now, as I stated earlier, I am not a PhD. (though I have an honorary one…big deal…can’t lecture with it) but where in Wikipedia is there a section dedicated to practicing philosophers as opposed to teachers of mostly-deceased formerly practicing philosophers and their philosophies??? One fine Wikipedian did come to my defense by initially quoting Henry David Thoreau’s
“There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically. Thoreau”.
Part One >>> To Be Continued Within Minutes