THE UNIVERSE OF INFORMATION.pdf - ideals

the Union sees itself as discarded by the Committee [on Intellectual
Co-operation]; it is not even called to work with its Sub-Committee.
The seminal idea which had led to the formation of the Committee is
not even discussed, and the parts of the idea, which the Union has
itself been successful in expressing in some first institutions, are
taken over by others who give them out as their own and receive
support. 21
These views were reinforced by de Reynold, the rapporteur
of the International Committee on Intellectual Co-operation,
who published an article about its early work in i\\& Revue
de Geneve towards the end of 1922, disparaging grandiose,
impractical and visionary schemes for the organisation of
intellectual work. Otlet was incensed by his attitude, and carefully
and rather savagely dissected the article. 22 Indeed, so
concerned was he by the implications of the views put forward
by de Reynold that he unburdened himself about them to the
League of Nations Union in England which had proposed at
this time to send a delegate to Brussels to look over the Palais
Mondial and especially examine the geographical museum
there. The visitor was gladly received, Otlet reported to the
Union upon his departure, but he had arrived in Brussels
just when we were strongly upset by the recent attitude of the Committee
on Intellectual Work of the League of Nations. Although the
formation of this Committee is due to our unceasing action ... the
members comprising it have counted our work as not existing in their
work. .. This injustice and wastage of effort augurs very badly for
the rest of the work... We throw up a cry of alarm and invite you
[the Union of Associations for the League of Nations] to examine the
Committee's work very attentively. As all who understand the League
agree, co-operation should be its foundation. But destruction is about to
take place if the principles revealed ... by M. de Reynold ... are followed.
23
On the 19th December, Otlet and La Fontaine sent a telegram
to Drummond expressing their concern about the
Committee and their dismay at not having been asked to give
evidence before it, or in any way participate in its meetings.
Drummond replied that the Committee's first session had
been essentially preparatory but that the Committee had
decided to invite a representative from the IIB to participate
in the next series of deliberations of the Sub-Committee on
Bibliography, an invitation duly sent. 24
It seems clear that Otlet had over-reacted, and that neither
he nor La Fontaine had appreciated the deliberateness with
which the Committee had proceeded to define its areas of
interest, examine possible forms of organisation, and debate
what immediately useful and practical kinds of action it
might take. Nor had they appreciated the financial constraints
within which the Committee had to function and which quickly
became so restrictive that the Committee was forced to turn
258