Pragmatism and the Fluid Dynamic of Ideas (Response to Eric).

Firstly, I fully agree with the central pragmatic insight that nothing is intrinsic to itself . . . things are in a constant state of flux. Where this ties into Wittgenstein, as I understand, is that the world around us - and of which we form part - is constantly being "created" and "recreated" through our language based upon the quality of our perspective at the time. Our language does not "represent" the world as if the world is a static entity. Our language merely describes the world as we perceive and experience it at that particular moment in time (Rorty et al.).



When it comes to the implication of pragmatic thought in context to my previous remarks regarding copyright, I see no conflict here. Since the way we perceive the world is constantly changing - i.e our ideas are constantly mutating as they come into contact with other ideas - it follows that no idea can be regarded as complete, ideal and catalogued in and of itself. The particular idea may serve the purpose of the moment, however it will most likely not serve the purposes of the future. This is a pragmatic view to begin with, and it is also precisely why I maintain that ideas do not exist independent of other ideas (by which they are both influenced and which they exercise an influence upon).



Pragmatically, it may serve the current interests of the publishing conglomerates to maintain such a rigid stance in the copyright debate (after all, their livelihoods are at stake). However, pragmatically-speaking of course, it doesn't serve the interests of the world at large (in a digital age that is ripe for a greater level of sharing in intellectual commodities than ever before)! We live in a world where over half the global population cannot even afford a proper meal. What then to speak of overpriced books, texts, articles, and the information and knowledge these people require to provide them with the means towards greater social participation and social mobility? Pragmatically, copyright laws that restrict popular access to bolster corporate profit do not serve their interests.



Also, I don’t believe such a thing as a “safe middle ground” exists! For there to be a “safe middle ground” it would require that everybody come to consensus on what exactly would constitute such a “middle ground”, i.e. what would define its parameters. Yet, there is very little, if any, all-agreed-upon consensus within society regarding anything. And this is a good thing since the tension allows for an ongoing creativity and dynamic.