Wednesday, July 12, 2017
I saw a cautionary tale this morning. Last night's dream was not important. I don't remember most of it, just that I left a bag of €3.99 KFC chicken wings on the end of the bed for some reason.
Now, this morning. I learned how firmly I believe in sharing - that is by meeting someone who absolutely refuses to share. And it occurs to me: capitalism, socialism, communism, and so forth, differ in distribution of material wealth, and therefore are all largely economic models. Freedom of Knowledge should not be blocked in any of these models.
I mean I guess I always know. That's why the Aaron Swartz case shook me so much. But here is a new angle. The person I met this morning saw intangible goods as material, and therefore refuses to share them. It's like people who refuse to exchange ideas because they feel their ideas will lose value (no longer unique) once they shared them. It makes no sense. I understand on a national level... organizational level - there is always need to keep security on intelligence. Even then it's not a good trade off as far as humanity is concerned. My point is believing in freedom of knowledge does not make you a communist, a socialist, any of those camps. Knowledge can be leveraged, capitalized, but never exclusively so. We must not treat knowledge the same as material.
I deeply, deeply believe in this.
When you see a homeless man on the street, you have no obligation or responsibility, or indeed need or reason to share with him your wealth to improve his condition, but, nothing, on principle, should prevent you from sharing with him ways to change his life. Nothing should prevent you from sharing the knowledge that there is a restaurant nearby that would hire anyone, a government sponsored program, a new shelter around the block, etc.
Whose responsibility is it to take care of the homeless? That's a different question. We're talking reason and principle today, but I am not against solving problems with sentiments. This isn't a full... not even an attempt at an answer, but I'm saying emotions are what perverted some people into taking intellectual property as material property, and they can also be used for good as to act on sympathy.
Knowledge powers free will. Is that right? It looks so to me, but even if it's different for other people, there is one thing we can agree on: knowledge isn't meant to be "stored" in a personal space, it is meant to be shared. It can only thrive in sharing and showing. You don't have to go around parading how smart you are if you've got important work to do, which really should be most of the time. It is excusable not to share with nonessential, unhelpful public a work-in-progress, but in principle your work should never be intentionally kept permanently from them.
With this in mind, we can examine the behaviors that we feel "wrong" more accurately and assess the reason why they indeed may be so. This is an important breakthrough for myself because I wonder, let me think, I wonder if I had ever treated any intellectual stuff as my personal possession. No. I don't think I have. I am ready to share everything intangible. Any time I don't share, it's strategic and not based on principle. You hear how many times I want to fuck a character or two, or just like them, but I never want to hoard and hog any of them. I never believed I should have exclusive access to any of them, and if anything, they're the most material-bordering immaterial stuff to myself.
I am glad I'm consistent on this one. It means I truly believe in it. I am firm on this.
And again, just to be clear, it is because they're figures created elsewhere, seen and embraced by other people so as if there is already a market for it and their values have been ascertained to a certain extent. The system is what makes them bordering material. Please don't think I'm sex-crazed, diary. I know I talk to you about that stuff way too much.
And now -
Praise God for the reflection.
Thank the Good Lord.