He did it first!

There's another thing that we could look at free of the 'He did it first!' mentality, another thing that we should try freeing from time. Copyright. It's self-evident to many creative people that scientific inventions and artistic ideas are often 'in the air'. They belong to no-one, and it's pretty accidental who gets there first. Calling them your property holds up human development.

I quote from the AP wires:

Bush Warns N. Korea Against Any Moves
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush, embarking on a trip to Asia, said today that the dividing zone between North and South Korea is ``one of the most dangerous places on earth.''

This, added to his recent comments about an 'axis of evil', makes Bush's main concern clear: to paint lines at various places around the world, designating people that side evil and this side good. Clearly this 'linesman strategy' is good for arms sales. It is bad for ambiguity, though. It demonstrates all that is worst about human thinking and human language: the arbitrary assignment of simple qualities to a complex world, the implied imperative to choose sides and prepare for a fight. It gives a new meaning to the Bush buzz phrase 'Let's roll!' No longer is 'Let's roll!' what the plucky (gay) passengers said when they went to storm the cabin of the fourth plane on 9/11. Now it means getting down on your knees and rolling the little wheeled paint pot they use on tennis courts, painting stupid white lines at various places in the world.

Let's roll out a few more simplistic binary oppositions. Never have we needed Dada more.

HOPEFULLY BUSH'S ENRON CONNECTION WILL GET HIM IMPEACHED. UNTIL THEN HE WILL MAKE MANY MORE IDIOTIC AND MONEY -ORIENTED MISTAKES. HE WILL PROBABLY NEXT ACCUSE RUSSIA OF BEING EVIL BECAUSE OF THEIR SKATING JUDGES.

That's frustratingly sensical (and cyclical), Mike. Try again.

No, wait, I think I missed the point. Surely Mik e communicating in fully realized and seemily logical sentences is just as much an assault to our sense-bound universe as would be Nitsuh (fr'instance) shouting garbled Dada-isms?

Wouldn't a rejection of the 'vicious cycle of reprisal' firstly entail a rejection of the notion of this thing 'hate', or of hate as the opposite of love? I feel I know what love is, but whatever I've felt can never live up to 'hate'. I don't know what hate is. Some say that the opposite of love is indifference, but I think indifference is orthogonal to love. This thing 'hate' just seems to be dustbin into which we chuck all sorts of feelings we don't want to confront - fear, discomfort, irritation, hormone fluctuations. Does hate really exist? Does love have an opposite? Can it be negated, is it subject to arithmetic, or is it something that is present to the extent that you're aware of it?

I don't get how "love-hate" or "do-don't" are supposed to be ways around the sequential nature of language. Aren't they just very short sequences? Surely you'd need to invent a new word which simultaneously means love/have or do/don't (nb this is not v.relevant to rest of discussion)