[PLUG-TALK] a superset of censorship

[Keith Lofstrom]

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 04:36:17PM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> 
> But there is one flaw in Ward's reasoning.  Taking and giving are just
> two parts of Ouroboros.  One cannot (successfully) give without taking
> or take without giving.  It's easy to see this when we posit a pure
> giver.  We all can imagine a pure taker.  We _think_ we see them
> everywhere.  But it's clearer when we imagine a pure giver.  Nobody's a
> pure giver.  Even Mother Teresa and Ghandi have to _eat_.  And even if
> their consumption fuels further giving, ultimately, they eat for purely
> self-serving purposes.

It isn't about pure - a not very useful category to think about.  It is
about whether you give more than you take, and whether you are striving
to be more of a giver or a taker (the first derivative).  Position and
process.  The extremes of giving and taking are creating and destroying,
and of course those are mixed as well.  Most of us muddle through near
the middle, but there are people and organizations that sit to each side
of that middle, striving to move farther from it in the taking or giving
direction.  Those people can be mapped to taker and giver categories,
although those are not permanent, either, as insights and disappointments
change our lives.

Someday, when I am old and frail, it will be challenging to be a giver; 
I must transform my many annoying needs into gifts for those providing
for me.  My mother and my mother-in-law, before their deaths, helped
show me how a "taker" can still give generously through their kind
attitude and appreciation, and that is the sense of giving while taking
that glen may be pointing at.  They didn't go out whining.  My mother
was being massaged when she died.  Her last gasped words were "that
feels good".  Talk about giving until the end ...

> Are we just a collection of mantric morons who support/use linux because
> we're victims of mob mentality?  Are we reactionaries with painful
> histories of exploitation by corporate empires?  Perhaps some of us just
> can't fit in with the "cool kids" and find it easier to be accepted by a
> bunch of geeky freaks?  Or are we more rational than your average person
> and, thereby, choose the more rational operating system for our purposes
> (which may include using those other OSes sporadically?

This may be more easily figured out face to face (and how come we don't
see more of your face these days, glen?), because talking with PLUGgers
reveals so many different motivations. 

Some people are motivated by the low dollar cost - some by freedom
- some by more control.  Some are political about this, some hate
corporations, and some just enjoy the fellowship.  I've spent time with
some of the rich and the famous and the celebrated (the "cool kids?")
and while I appreciate their accomplishments, I would not trade places
with them, or trade most of you for them.  It isn't about status - it's
about building friendships.  Shared tasks are a good way to do that.

I came to open source to advance freedom and to control my own computing
environment.  Politically, I want to show that freedom and sharing are
compatible with wealth and professional accomplishment.  I stay for the
the chance to give to individual others, and to enrich the world one 
line of code at a time.  More important is the hunch that some of you
may be the ones who get rich by transforming Linux into a universally
usable, remotely commercially maintainable, and trustworthy platform
for the folks who aren't "geeky freaks".  The next Brin and Page,
perhaps.  I like to brag about my friends and acquaintances that do
well by doing good.  In the next few years I expect PLUGgers will
give me a lot to brag about.

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com         Voice (503)-520-1993
KLIC --- Keith Lofstrom Integrated Circuits --- "Your Ideas in Silicon"
Design Contracting in Bipolar and CMOS - Analog, Digital, and Scan ICs