TED Conversations

Kevin Brian Carroll

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Would you keep it to yourself or give it away to someone who had already achieved the fame required to promote it to the world?

If you had uncovered the truth about reality (and humanity's unique role within it) and it was very much capable - as a initiating notion - of launching subsequent metaphysics and physics breakthroughs, but you had never prepared your life to be viewed as a credible messenger/educator within that specific cultural sphere, would you persist in trying to break this revolutionary notion as its author, or would you quietly hand it over to a much more notable individual whose claims of authorship would be much more successful in gaining widespread interest in the notion itself?

Topics: Love for Humanity Obscurity fame metaphysics social responsibility
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb

      Kevin Brian Carroll

      • 0
      Feb 13 2012: That's quite a statement. There are (in the neighborhood of) 7 billion people alive on the planet right now. And not one of them deserves to know who they are, what they are, and why they exist? Knowing this as a certainty is even more remarkable than knowing the truth about what I just listed in the last sentence. You're quite a remarkable intellect. I would never have even known how to determine such a thing as the relative merit of each individual within the whole of humankind relative to the intrinsic benefit of learning the truth behind humanity's oldest and most controversial parlor game mystery. What metrics did you employ? It'd be fascinating to have your process detailed.
  • thumb

    Fritzie Reisner 100+

    • 0
    Host
    Feb 11 2012: There is a saying of the tzaddiks, the wise men of ancient Jewish tradition, that translates as "You know, you can get a lot of good done in this world if you don't care who gets the credit." I would without hesitation pass my best idea along to some else who could use or disseminate it for more positive impact than I could myself. In fact, I would feel no less connected to my discovery for having passed it along. It would continue to feel to me like part of my body of work.
    • thumb

      Kevin Brian Carroll

      • 0
      Feb 13 2012: Maybe you should have been the one presented with the dilemma then.
  • thumb

    Edward Hicks

    • 0
    Feb 9 2012: You know, your question reminds me of what Muddy Waters said about the Rolling Stones:

    "They stole my music but they gave me my name."

    I've always thought it is one of the saddest sentences ever uttered in the history of mankind; just imagine all the invisible things in between those words. Although there are discoveries in this world that are simply too great to keep them to yourself, try keeping your name with yours.
    • thumb

      Kevin Brian Carroll

      • 0
      Feb 10 2012: Sadly, the world of big ideas is just as competitive as the world of great music. Fame is the motivator for most who achieve it, and those who've always had that fire in their belly are the ones who we all know and look to for our cues on how to live, love and interpret reality.

      Let's assume that this specific premise has the power to lift this public mahatma's profile into the realm of people like Einstein, Tesla, Buddha and Newton. And let's assume that this person is fully aware of what awaits him/her in fame and public accolades, and that this is what has motivated that person to make this deal.

      In other words, they'll be taking your music and your name, leaving you with only the knowledge that you could not have ever seized the headlines for your breakthrough that this person can seize, due to the career that he/she has already established in the given field of study. You'd be required to simply walk away and try to stay away from that field of study forever.
      • thumb

        Edward Hicks

        • 0
        Feb 10 2012: I am no scientist or engineer, so I do not know what it takes to be Einstein, Tesla or Newton. If it was that fire in their bellies that had made Muddy Waters and the Buddha who they were, no amount of teaching could have been given to anyone else to fully live out their talents and ideas except themselves. It would have been utterly "immoral" of them to walk away with such a fire that is bright enough to illuminate part of the world, if not all of mankind. What other way would they have chosen otherwise?
        • thumb

          Kevin Brian Carroll

          • 0
          Feb 13 2012: I honestly have no idea what allowed those men to be associated with their notions, but I do know that in our modern world, if you haven't been raised within or working within a specific "industry" (like music, film, academia, elite business) then you simply cannot barge in and set up shop. In the world of esoteric sciences (most call this field Metaphysics) you need to claim a divine guidance or supernormal capacity, and be able to convince the established hierarchy within the field of your capacity, if you want to be taken seriously. You certainly can't offer proof that there is a non-mystical, intellectually accessible foundation from which all of it rises. There are careers at stake for these folks, and since a non-mystical, intellectually accessible foundation would naturally cross contaminate the fields of theology, philosophy, religion, quantum physics and every siloed segment of physical science, you'd be dealing with thousands of careers on the line. In this modern world, the impact of breakthroughs leave a much more profound crater, and this would be why a Buddha or a Newton would probably be less likely to spring from nowhere - then again, Buddha was an Indian Prince (there's your pedigree in his case) and Newton was a well know academic as an adult, and had already focused his entire life in that regard. His initial breakthroughs were within the very tight confines of math, and later theories were generally associated with that discipline. Certainly not his heretical dabblings with biblical prophesy interpretation, and therein lies what I'm suggesting - that unless you've already become established in a filed of inquiry, your breakthroughs in that field will never be acknowledged or even given a fair airing.

          Those men didn't have to walk away from their bright fires. And yet, how many others have had to? We'll never know, because we never learned about their bright fires. We only know about the ones who were allowed to present those fires.
      • thumb

        Edward Hicks

        • 0
        Feb 14 2012: Life sure is a gamble, isn't it?
        • thumb

          Kevin Brian Carroll

          • 0
          Feb 14 2012: For most of us, yes, it is. For some, not so much. Luckily, this is just a development phase, but we can still screw it up. That said, it does take more than one false move to fail completely.
      • thumb

        Edward Hicks

        • 0
        Feb 16 2012: From what I've learned, skydiving is one of the safest extreme sports around. I'll say: go for it, brother.
  • thumb

    Bastian Brandt

    • 0
    Feb 9 2012: Of cause widespread it and never regret it, even so someone else would gain all the credit for it. :) If you would be sure, that it only does good and can not be misused. But actually I think you could go with your second option, but still let everyone know, that it started all with your own discovery.
    • thumb

      Kevin Brian Carroll

      • 0
      Feb 10 2012: Let's assume that you could somehow restrict the person from misusing it (maybe with proof of your own authorship as a constant gun to this person's head?), but that would be predicated on the agreement that unless the premise was misused it would always and forever be attributed to that person, and never attributed to you, the true author.

      I guess the real question is "Would you be capable of actually handing the only real accomplishment of your whole life to someone who you had to literally teach the premise to, in exchange for his/her ability (due to their own established fame or media access) to provide that accomplishment the widespread dissemination of that achievement, given that this person's only motivation is the fame that will come through this breakthrough?"

      In other words, just how selfless could you possibly be with the only possible claim to fame you'll ever have, given that you'll never receive any acknowledgement or any potential financial compensation whatsoever for what would clearly reset human history due to the impact it would have on humanity?

      And, if you just were not able to do this, would that mean that you were morally unfit to be granted this information?

      Hell, can you even realistically place yourself within this scenario?
      • thumb

        David Hamilton 50+

        • 0
        Feb 14 2012: "the only real accomplishment of your whole life"... I assure you, that you underestimate yourself, or overestimate your opponents... Pass ideas on to good people, and they will help you use them to succeed. Humanity has too many questions for one solution.
        • thumb

          Kevin Brian Carroll

          • 0
          Feb 14 2012: Of course, we're dealing with hypotheticals here, and the premise does state that this discovery you've made IS your life's only real accomplishment. Therein lies the dilemma, whereas if this was not the case, there'd be no real dilemma for you. After all, what dilemma exists where there isn't a true dilemma?

          And as I also suggested in the premise set-up, this discovery isn't like a new way to can vegetables or even a new cure for cancer. This is the ultimate mystery, and you solved it by yourself. Not only that, but a deal must be struck that this one overwhelming contribution to the whole of humankind must forever be denied by you if you want this famous person to ensure that it is given the one chance it has to actually keep from dying off along with you in obscurity (which it probably already has in millennia past due to the relative obscurity of each discoverer and/or even active efforts to shut down its emergence).

          You're not just passing it along. You're allowing someone else to be given the whole credit for your discovery and all the years you devoted to that one achievement. In fact, you will have to actually teach this person to make sure he/she doesn't misunderstand it or misrepresent it when they break the news of what it is that he/she has finally achieved. And you're giving it to someone who'd actually make this kind of deal with you - which begs the question of how "good" a person this would be to begin with. And yet, they have the established public credentials that are needed to be noticed.

          Given these criteria, what do you think you'd do?

          Maybe it's impossible for anyone to really imagine this as a true dilemma? Maybe it's just too outlandish a vignette for most folks to be able to place themselves within it, without naturally responding to its question as heroically as they'd likely wish that they could if similarly challenged? Maybe it's not a fair question to ask anyone who can't really imagine it as a dilemma they'd ever face in life?
      • thumb

        David Hamilton 50+

        • 0
        Feb 15 2012: I think it's an interesting question... In the pure hypothetical I have to suggest that I would choose to be selfless, knowing full well... everyone would like to suggest that.

        When reality sets in. I'm arrogant. He can tell me that he's the only person who can get the information out there properly... and I won't believe him. I can do everything myself... or so I think... It's important to at least be aware of your own shortcomings.

        Also, I believe happiness is a journey not a destination, so the true nature of human existence is too massive a concept to find itself solved. Even after solving such a thing... I would still have to solve the mystery of what I wanted for breakfast every morning... That can be quite a dilemma as well.
        • thumb

          Kevin Brian Carroll

          • 0
          Feb 15 2012: " Even after solving such a thing... I would still have to solve the mystery of what I wanted for breakfast every morning... That can be quite a dilemma as well."

          :~D

          You're right. Even after solving the ultimate riddle, you're still left with the really hard stuff. Like how to get anyone else to ever believe that you actually did it. Hell, the only thing that's truly unknowable is the way that any person you meet interprets what the two of you - together - are capable of perceiving as real and concrete. Perception itself is at the heart of all misconception, even as it's the only source of true wisdom.

          Human beings "invented" subjectivity. Not on purpose, but as a ramification of the nature of Intellect-centric information. No one can ever know the whole of everything, since as long as the human mind exists (and it always will - in countless varieties and shadings) there will always be surprises emerging to add to the inconceivable vastness of our own contextual environment. Both the corporeal realm and the informational realm will always be forever adding new rooms to their emerging wings and dimensional confines. Factor in the myriad of other contextual environs, and it becomes pretty clear that foundation reality - while definitely scalable and even somewhat replicable - will never have its snapshot taken by anyone or anything.

          Still, it's good to know how to surf it all.
Showing all 18 comments