If you want “generosity” and “charity” maybe get some friends and no online “friends” are not really your friends I mean like real friends in real life…


oldmanaloneGreat blogospheric minds collide in a passionate Greek wrestling grapple over what constitutes “generosity” and “charity” in online interactions. Not surprisingly, both have a long history of “generous” and “charitable” interactions online – so their word must be golden.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

In the end, maybe we should not invest the internets with so much affective capital? Maybe get a couple of friends, get a couple of beers and than just, you know, hang out with them?

Does Saying So Make It So? Copyrighting Blog Posts


Read an interview with someone somewhere – here is the kicker at the end:

© Eileen A. Joy and Figure/Ground Communication. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.

Awesome, right. The only problem is that, it appears, that the author simply threw this at the bottom of the text as if the magic formula works in and of itself. Well, I don’t think it does. I believe you have to register your blog post with the Copyright Office and pay a fee. Copyright Act was written and passed before blogs, so it is an interesting and tricky question. You certainly cannot just claim you have the copyright to stuff, can you?

I am quite certain that the brain behind Figure/Ground – Laureano Ralon – who at one point hilariously listed all the schools he has been accepted to and uploaded the acceptance letters to his then individual blog, did not in fact do any copyrighting. And this is just for show – look, we are a real publication with copyright claims!

(Actually a couple of letters are still linked to in his biowho does that?)

The easiest way to test my theory that Figure/Ground did not in fact register their blog (or individual blog posts) with Copyright Office and are therefore claiming copyright where none exists (blogs are not considered “published materials”), thus violating the law they claim is on their side, would be to republish their interview (or interviews) and wait for a “cease and desist” letter. But I am too lazy to do so.

© The Mind of Mikhail Emelianov. Unauthorized use without express and written permission is strictly prohibited. 

PS. The Figure/Ground blog has a Creative Commons logo:

You are free: to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work.

Awesome!

Philosophy, Rotten Meta-Theory, Bullshit


Skholiast (Speculum Criticum Traditionis) has an interesting post about bullshit and philosophy, prompted in part by Rogers Albritton’s remarks about rotten meta-theory (discussed here):

The bullshitter, as the one who is, not a liar, but indifferent to whether their utterances are true or false, is in some way the inverse of the poet (who “Nothing affirmeth and therefore never lieth”), because this indifference is not a sublimation in the service of something higher (and to which one must metaphorically extend the category truth), but a willful repression for the sake of something lower (reputation, career, getting the sex object into bed).

One of the greatest struggles I have, philosophically speaking, is wedding the seriousness of philosophy with the humility incumbent upon finitude. This constantly risks a kind of bullshit, as Albritton sees; one devotes a love to work one cannot ultimately believe in. (It is here that I’d locate the close kinship between philosophy and scientific method, which must also remain corrigible.

Or as Faulker so aptly put it, “”The measure of a writer isn’t success,  but how hard he tried to do what he knew he couldn’t do.”