The progression of thought...
Someone has suggested that I have developed an ideology out of open-source. And the fact is, they missed the point completely, or I should have clearly stated the relationship of one to the other. So, let me do so.
My involvement with Linux is relatively recent (2000), compared to my involvement in the formulation of my ideology. My ideology was formulated first. It was formulated from my childhood (from 1956 and forward) and progressed from the experiences and encounters of growing up in a society that didn't value equality with moral certainty. From the time of being young, I have always aspired "to know". It was something that I was known for. Being introspective about things others simply didn't recognize or didn't want to pay attention to. Yet, I couldn't see any other means of existence for myself. Consequently, I was always drawn to others who manifested that same characteristic. To know.
I have always seen and understood ignorance to be the failing of the individual. And the problem is that some actually prefer to be and remain ignorant. Ignorance can be comfortable. It provides a conscious buffer from the necessity to be responsible for their participation (especially the lack thereof) in society. Selfishness is the unraveling of brotherhood. And when it is suggested that community should be our highest concern, many balk. The notion that they must give up something for the benefit of another is simply anathema. They would rather cut of their arm, than lend a hand to the betterment of all.
No. What I have proposed here, is to look at open-source as a model for the advancement of society at large. I believe open-source can become one of the fabrics from which our society is woven. And since this fabric is dominated by the distribution of knowledge, I see it as integral to the advancement of consciousness. I didn't come to open-source and think, "let me develop a society around it. I came from an ideology of absolute equality, and conceived of open-source as a vehicle to produce the results I aspire to.
The immediate equalization of all knowledge among all beings.
Shingoshi
My involvement with Linux is relatively recent (2000), compared to my involvement in the formulation of my ideology. My ideology was formulated first. It was formulated from my childhood (from 1956 and forward) and progressed from the experiences and encounters of growing up in a society that didn't value equality with moral certainty. From the time of being young, I have always aspired "to know". It was something that I was known for. Being introspective about things others simply didn't recognize or didn't want to pay attention to. Yet, I couldn't see any other means of existence for myself. Consequently, I was always drawn to others who manifested that same characteristic. To know.
I have always seen and understood ignorance to be the failing of the individual. And the problem is that some actually prefer to be and remain ignorant. Ignorance can be comfortable. It provides a conscious buffer from the necessity to be responsible for their participation (especially the lack thereof) in society. Selfishness is the unraveling of brotherhood. And when it is suggested that community should be our highest concern, many balk. The notion that they must give up something for the benefit of another is simply anathema. They would rather cut of their arm, than lend a hand to the betterment of all.
No. What I have proposed here, is to look at open-source as a model for the advancement of society at large. I believe open-source can become one of the fabrics from which our society is woven. And since this fabric is dominated by the distribution of knowledge, I see it as integral to the advancement of consciousness. I didn't come to open-source and think, "let me develop a society around it. I came from an ideology of absolute equality, and conceived of open-source as a vehicle to produce the results I aspire to.
The immediate equalization of all knowledge among all beings.
Shingoshi
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
An oversight in critical awareness...
Actually, after going back and reading the opening lines of my initial blog, I really don't see how anyone could have missed this.
The very fact that I begin by saying my ideology was developed from years of consideration would tend to dismiss another notion of it being recent and or tied to the presence of open-source. Although, I guess depending on your age, and the history one might have, maybe it can be assumed that open-source would have preceded a development of such ideas.Quote:This is something that I developed out of years of consideration, concerning the global condition of human consciousness, and the level of strife faced by humanity in general, an in relation to my own.
But let's say for a moment that such an analysis were correct. That open-source had in fact inspired an ideology. What should we make from such an assumption? And what difference would it make substantially? Is it to be assumed that open-source is incapable of producing a higher level of reasoning than many are comfortable with? Are the values of open-source nonconducive to a notion of absolute equality? Are they somehow to be considered mutually exclusive? That having one forbids the other. [I will use <irc> to replace the person's name.]
One of the things that has always confused (and amused) me, is how many people have a real problem with concepts of morality. But then again, it makes real sense, since morality requires responsibility which most individuals refuse to accept. It simply is inconvenient to their selfishness and aspirations of personal greatness. Morality serves to defeat an unbridled ego. And the whole orientation of ego is to exist without limitation. So it should come as no surprise to anyone, that morality is always raised as a point of derision.Quote:<irc> Shingoshi, this article is a wishfull thinking babble :/
<Shingoshi> <irc>, we all choose our own future. I simply prefer a different idea than yours.
<irc> Shingoshi, no, making up ideology out of open-source is like adding morality to religion ;p
<irc> before you find out you end up with something which uses morality as excuse for it's existence
So I guess the precise question is, "is open-source a form of morality? Should open-source be thought of as any thing other than ethical?Quote:morality: n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality]
2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: {ethical motive}, ethics, morals]
ShingoshiPosted 06-21-2009 at 06:52 PM by Shingoshi 
