fireworks_god said:

daytripper23 said:

Who is imagining something more, a sentiment and morality to dress this undifferentiated bitrate?

---

I only referred to the means through which information is being exchanged to suggest that it is the only thing that has changed relative to the debate on intellectual property, the fact that a great number of people are taking advantage of a streamlined process of obtaining and using information that is still classified legally as being a violation of the usage rights of that information, and that this change certainly isn't some grand tilting of the scales between capitalism and marxism as it pertains to property rights, as you've portrayed it to be.

Beyond that, your reading comprehension is apparently pretty skewed, because there's nothing in my post that amounts to moral sentiments on my part or any kind of moral stance whatsoever on the subject, and there's nothing in my post to suggest that I'm coveting history.

I referenced history to indicate that what you are claiming to be some transformative event in the realms of economic ideology in which the former stance as it relates to materialism is being mirrored and revealed for its "true" nature is nothing more than a masturbatory fantasy.
The debate has always been one about usage rights to immaterial assets.
You refer to the utter fantasy that information could actually be owned, but its never been a question about that - its always been a question regarding which usage rights can be associated with certain kinds of information, not really that much different than a debate on usage rights for water, really.

Illuminate my moral stance on the issue as evidenced by my posts on the matter. Where precisely is the moral sentiment?
The only thing I did was scoffed at your portrayal of what the phenomenon means in terms of the debate within economic idealism.

---

"The debate" is moralistic, due to the way it hangs over, and attempts to burden or shame natural perception.

This interchange we are speaking of is perceptual, due to the undifferentiation of its content. Like Decypher said, its 1's and 0's. The simple fact of the matter, is that the exchange is effected in terms of these numbers (the medium), not the particular forms it may assume. These numbers are essentially seen, and there is evidently no more burden to information than that.

Here we will follow the advents of the medium, beginning with the human mind and ending with virtual reality of the internet. In illustrating a turn from "exchange" to "perception" in this process, one may see the structural nature of these economic ideals from the very beginning. This is seen in the gradual process of extending our perception.

We begin with the ordinary vision and memory of the eye and brain. This is perception and awareness.

From this natural perception and awareness, we draw an extension to that of the video camera's lens and reel, in other words, reproduction. Within the compulsory terms of "the debate" came economic revolt. See Ricky Fitts' eccentric sense of economy and perception in American Beauty.



At this point, the medium is still naturally perceptual, only it has been made more convenient, or more virtual. "The debate" faced an ostensible revolution at this time, in the same movement that it formed itself as ideology. The nature of this 2 in 1 movement, accommodation is missed by statesmen and revolutionaries alike - by anyone who will still naively assert "the debate" as if it were as basic as nature itself.

Say for example we are talking about FireworksGod building a physical church, like I previously mentioned. The property/power holders works TO their particular ideal of property, "the church", which is cemented upon nature. Since it cannot be said for sure whether man asserted gravity by his feats of construction, or that construction heeds gravity, nobody could yet succinctly prove the difference between conformity and law, or construction and nature. There was simply "the church", and with it, "the debate" for your soul.

So the advent of reproduction did not realize the revolutionary ideal, even if it did perhaps reveal it to human intuition. By the still necessary physicality for this content (like the grooves of a record or tape reel), the property holders only find a new foothold or bearing to assert a modified justice, by accommodating the "laws" of property to reproduction. And since these laws were once accomplished constructions, plainly evident, nobody could deny them. Now we can differentiate between natural reality and its constructions, by the full acknowledgment and realization that these rights were accommodated to the advent of a medium. It was not a heroic human justice (morality) coming to fore, but the reality of the medium which is always accommodated, just as an architect accommodates his project to the laws of gravity.

So even while there was a revolt on advent of the videotape reproduction, it was accommodated by those powers, or powers like it (proprietary). Thus there remained plenty of awe and power for the ambiguity between nature and construction at this point. The basic perception was that these constructions were natural, and so they truly accommodated the medium, by conformity. Moral construction aligns with the physicality of nature to build upon it.

Now, the reason the ideal has evidently turned, is that we are still existing and grounding ourselves from the very same basis of perception and awareness. Only now, as our natural perception remains as it is, exponentially extending itself in terms of memory and networking, it has subsumed the burden of the material world. In the present medium representation of content has evidently replaced the burdens of material reproduction. So what was once exchanged as reproduced material, is now seen represented and seen as information.

It goes without saying that anything that can be represented in this medium no longer holds any significant material burden. 1's and 0's no longer hold material basis of exchange, because these numbers have such little "weight" in comparison to the present extension of perception and awareness. This mode of being (the evidence of "is") is what I am impressing as self evident.

Just as information is nakedly seen, moral debates are seen as extraneous. Masturbation? Only through shameful tint of moralistic glasses, is art contrived to fit this rhetoric. I hope anyone living in this century can see how outdated "the debate" is, in that sense. Again, whose shame is it? Think about it, who ever brings up masturbation in rhetoric, besides a preacher?

People will see and feel as they please. They will fantasize, and their fantasies will extend to the world as far as their vision extends. This is art. Presenting the construction of economic ideals to this natural perception has been my main intention. But I also hope people pursue their own vision, as far as it will take them.

Thanks for reading.