Re: CHAT: facing your own mortality (as a conlanger)
|Date:||Saturday, July 12, 2008, 3:26|
> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Nomad ofNorad -- David C Hall
> > On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 23:05:22 -0400, Dana Nutter wrote:
> >> I know other believe differently, and they are entitled todo
> >> so, but my philosophy is when I'm gone, I'm nothing morethan
> >> food for the worms whether anyone remembers me or not.Leaving
> >> something behind means nothing to me.
> > That's a rather bleak and cynical outlook, I must say.
> > I know that I don't know what happens to me after I die,
> > but apart from this _scio ut nescio_ I firmly believe
> > that we are here with a purpose, namely to make the world
> > a better and more beautiful place. And that means that we
> > *should* care about the rest of the world, even beyond our
> > own lifespans.
> Indeed, he seems to be going into this with the attitude that,unless
> his material is preserved *only* the way *he* wants itpreserved *and*
> *no* *other* *way*, then he seemingly doesn't want itpreserved *at* *all*.
No, I'm going into it with the attitude that I really don't care
*if* any of my work is preserved at all. If someone wants to
take the materials I've published in PDF's, print them out and
lock them in a hermetically-sealed time vault, that's fine with
me but I'm not going to go through all that trouble. They are
published online for the benefit of those who are interested in
the languages, and may want to study and learn them. If nobody
finds them interesting, that's fine too. I do this more for my
own intellectual stimulation that anythings else.
> That just rankles me.
> In any event, control is an illusion. We don't really HAVEfull control
> over how our information propagates out from us or is storedby others
> once it leaves our fingers, *nor* *should* *we*. Once a pieceof
> information -- such as a conlang -- passes beyond our wallsinto the
> outside world, there IS no real control of where it goes,what people do
> with it, or how it gets collated by others. It could besliced and
> diced, remixed, spindled, mutilated, or otherwise monkeyedwith, and
> we'd have no way to stop it. *And* *we* *shouldn't*. It hasbecome the
> property of society, of civilization in general, by thatpoint.
From a purely legal perspective we do have some control by
excerising copyrights. The way the trends are moving, I
wouldn't be surprised if intellectual property rights become
infinite. On the realistic side though, things do get copied and
passed around so there surely isn't total control.
> Sorry, Dana. :D