How to be STO in a STS world ?

Ellipse

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I would appreciate some advices about a project.

Here is the situation. I had made a computer programme with the intent to sell it. A free version with some limitations will be distributed too.

But I have a terrible doubt. It seem to me that a really STO approach would be to distribute freely the product with the sources. Fine but I must eat and I do not see how to make money with services associated with the product.

Here is a summary of how I see the situation for a free distribution:

Pro :
- timelessness of the product
- perhaps un more fast growing
- some existing free resources can be used
- can be used in other country if someone adapt it
- STO attitude
- No direct money

Con :
- the product is tie to me
- I'm the only one developing the product
- free resources can not be used due to free copyright limitation
- use limited to France at the beginning
- direct money
- with previous point can help SOTT

Some advices ? thx.
 
well, if we start off with this scenario:

- do whatever is required in order to make enough money to live on, by whatever means necessary.
- write a computer program that you want to, in your spare time, just because it is what you really wish to do and you are able to. and give the results away.

however, I don't think that's where you're coming from. You're looking at combining them both, so making some software AND using it to generate an income.

So... if you're intending to use it to generate money for you to live on, I don't see any problem in you charging money for it! ;)

I kind of see what you are getting at in your conundrum though (possibly), and I think it all depends on what your aim is. You're looking at it too black and white, I think, and it depends on the situation.

Your aim might be simply to make yourself comfortable with more money. or it might be to support yourself to eat and live in order for you to pursue some other aim. or it might be that the software itself serves some specific purpose that is important. So it seems to me like it is the aim/intent which directs your actions that makes the difference.

you might want to check out Heinz's Dilema
 
Ellipse said:
But I have a terrible doubt. It seem to me that a really STO approach would be to distribute freely the product with the sources.

From what I understand a fundamental rule of STO approach is respect of other's free will.

Respecting VS not respecting other's free will is different from selling Vs giving a software.

There are many people who are willing to pay for a software that meets their needs, meanwhile some free software don't really respect user's free will because for example the product description doesn't fit the real features of the software.

Also from an energetic/karmic point of view a software that you purchase (like any other product/service) can allow a balance between the user and the developper.

The user gives energy to the developper through money and the time/effort to earn it, the developper gives energy to the user through the sofware and the time/effort he has spent creating it.
 
I see no issue with you making money from the fruit of your labor, to support your aim of of being able to help your network and being financially independent. Especially since you have a simple free version that may be used by those who can't afford the main one, or those who only require the bare necessities. AS has already been pointed out, it's your aim with which you approach this venture that counts.
 
Hildegarda said:
I see no issue with you making money from the fruit of your labor, to support your aim of of being able to help your network and being financially independent. Especially since you have a simple free version that may be used by those who can't afford the main one, or those who only require the bare necessities. AS has already been pointed out, it's your aim with which you approach this venture that counts.

I agree. It all comes down to your intent. You are intending to make money to live off of. Not to become rich so that you can enjoy an overabundance of material wealth. You DO have to eat and have a roof over your head and pay bills.

The STO way is to give energy for energy. You are giving your energy of making a computer program and, in return, you receive energy in monetary terms. Money is the energy of 3d. It would be pointless to just give everything away and have no food nor shelter so that you end up in 5d. osit

STS would be to make a cheap computer program, overcharge for it, try to become famous so that you can make even more money and use it for things such as drugs, expensive clothes and jewelery, souped up cars....you get my drift?

Anyway, I think selling something so that you can exist is not a problem. ;)

At least that's the way it seems to me right now.
 
Nienna Eluch said:
The STO way is to give energy for energy. You are giving your energy of making a computer program and, in return, you receive energy in monetary terms. Money is the energy of 3d.

To add to that, I can imagine someone giving the program out for free for STS reasons. Someone who would willingly suffer, not being able to support oneself adequately, yet at the same time cherish the feeling of being so noble and selfless, sacrificing so much. I don't mean you, it's an example.

But even beyond that -- and may be it's just me -- but to me, a computer program is not so much a gift to the world, or a piece of truth for sharing that everyone could benefit from. Rather it's in the realm of market goods that follow the supply\demand law, and that only a few people out there really need, for a purely pragmatic reasons.

You seem to be attaching more significance to it, and I totally understand it: it's your creation, your "baby", you are proud of it. But, it's in the end a computer program, and most likely just one of many, or of others to come.

Also, while doing that, you still imply that even if you were to share the program for free, you still would intend to make money on customer support:

but I must eat and I do not see how to make money with services associated with the product.

how is making money on services different from making money on the program? Following your own logic, if you are truly STO, shouldn't you be not only giving away the program for free, but also serving your customers for life for free also?

of course it's unrealistic, and everything that was said to you by others before, stands. I am just adding that you might want to re-examine your attitude towards your creation and motivations behind your actions a notch deeper.

osit
 
@nomad :
yes, the program was not wrote during spare time but since last 12 months as part of my own company.

You're looking at it too black and white
Computer programmer mind deformation.

-----

To summarize, important points I hold:



a fundamental rule of STO approach is respect of other's free will
(implication not only serve others)


meanwhile some free software don't really respect user's free will because for example the product description doesn't fit the real features of the software.


from an energetic/karmic point of view a software that you purchase (like any other product/service) can allow a balance between the user and the developper.


Money is the energy of 3d. It would be pointless to just give everything away and have no food nor shelter so that you end up in 5d.
Yes, main point in my opinion. One can serve other better if he have a roof.


how is making money on services different from making money on the program?
The point of difficulty. If I spread the sources perhaps others will join my effort then the product will be better and useful to more people.
You well know, there is a lot of software which are "open source" and people get income with it : Firefox, Apache, MySql, this forum framework, ...

Perhaps the point is that, at this moment, by distributing freely the software I would put in my mouth more that I can swallow.

Thx to give me some of your time, hope I will reward you.
 
Ellipse said:
I would appreciate some advices about a project.
[...]
Some advices ? thx.



I think the principle of "exchange" where it concerns feedback, payback or "pay" for one's efforts, is not inherently good or bad, evil or righteous, or STS/STO; it simply exists as it is - a principle of nature/existence, for balancing purposes.
One can use the principle for any purpose, and 'intent' will probably influence the outcome for a given individual.

In the early years, when Laura was feeling frustrated from the sheer amount of work needing to be done, and needing money to survive, the C's encouraged her on several occasions, to start putting the information 'out there' and she was encouraged to experiment with formats - whether magazines, books, whatever - and was assured that money would come. Even though there was initial opposition to the idea, and there is still the commitment to keep SOTT free, I think the lesson is plain: that its ok.
In addition, I believe that the assurances of monetary income was due to the recognition that 'the product (information) is needed' by the market - which is, itself, another lesson.


Since your product involves the software industry, I don't think my post would be complete unless I shared the following advice, which I found valuable:

First, I'm fairly certain that there exists the general sentiment that generally speaking, software developers and software developing programs are a dime-a-dozen. And I include myself in that category as well (as amateur as I am), so I think it would be a serious advantage, if you need to earn a living with your program, to be willing to let the market determine the form and function of "the final product" - its evolutionary course. Of course, that's done by incorporating as much feedback as possible into design and development. That is not something many people seem willing to do, once they come to 'love' their own creation.

I had a bit of doubt about including the above paragraph in this post, because, from the viewpoint of the Work, it might appear to be a violation of your freewill or your 'lesson path'. In the end, however, I decided to include it in the spirit of 'giving all' that I may have to offer on the issue.
I rely on feedback from more experienced members to help me adjust my belief on this, if necessary.


For more general discussion on how to be more STO in an STS world, you might find some interesting information on the board:
Cassiopaea Forum » Esoterica » The Work, in the thread:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9245.msg66332#msg66332
 
But even beyond that -- and may be it's just me -- but to me, a computer program is not so much a gift to the world, or a piece of truth for sharing that everyone could benefit from. Rather it's in the realm of market goods that follow the supply\demand law, and that only a few people out there really need, for a purely pragmatic reasons.

You seem to be attaching more significance to it, and I totally understand it: it's your creation, your "baby", you are proud of it. But, it's in the end a computer program, and most likely just one of many, or of others to come.
Acute observation Hildegarda. This is related to the fact that the idea behind the software was inspired while reading SOTT and can, as I see it, help others. But it remain a tool, and a tool can be used for bad or good.

from Buddy :
Of course, that's done by incorporating as much feedback as possible into design and development
Yep
 
Nienna Eluch said:
The STO way is to give energy for energy. You are giving your energy of making a computer program and, in return, you receive energy in monetary terms. Money is the energy of 3d. It would be pointless to just give everything away and have no food nor shelter so that you end up in 5d. osit

Yes, I agree, energy in itself is neutral. Its probably how it's used that shows whether it is being used in an STS or STO way.

STS will seek to compete for it, accumulate it, and deprive others of it (whether it be money or something else) and STO will seek to balance it and give it to all people who need it. We currently live in an STS system, so it becomes very difficult to attempt to balance something which opperates in a prefered state of inbalance.
 
Ruth said:
We currently live in an STS system, so it becomes very difficult to attempt to balance something which opperates in a prefered state of inbalance.

Well said. But this could perhaps be subverted (to *some* degree) by restricting one's exchanges to a smaller group of like-minded people. As Laura has done with the sale of her products. Or by creating small communities dedicated to the same communal goals, like Brithdir Mawr in Britain....
 
I've been working on OpenSource software for a long time, and would like to point out even more complexity in the issue. The software I have written, much of which is freely available under an OpenSource license, is in wide use by both large and small companies and corporations. The large ones include the porn industry, national intelligence organizations, and the military industry. Since I made the software freely available there is nothing I can do about these latter users, no matter how I personally feel about it. I have also written commercial software which is also used by military industry, and although I tried to avoid this there were other forces in the company which were stronger. So both my "free" and "non-free" work has been used for purposes which I personally don't agree with. In fact, making it "free" makes it completely impossible for me to have it NOT be used by these kinds of organizations, whereas with a proprietary one I have some possibility to choose who I sell it to (provided that I can influence sales, that is).

Also, when working with OpenSource software there are many different kinds of licenses. Some argue that the GPL, which Linux is available under, is the most "free" one, since it mandates that anyone that uses and extends it also make their changes available as OpenSource. My own view, coming from an understanding that I cannot dictate others free will, usually prefer the Apache License, which means that I make my work freely available, but anyone can choose to use it in any way they want to, be it commercial or in free software. To me that is more respectful of others free will, and does not try to dictate how others use their energy.

Currently I am in the process of creating a new product line based on OpenSource. However, that decision in itself has NOTHING to do with being STO. Making it OpenSource makes it easier to "sell"(=easier introduction), makes it easier to get contributions from great developers and architects, and is a generally useful thing to do from a marketing point of view. There's a ton of other things that I intend to make serious money on, including support, hosting, training, etc., the usual stuff. I.e. it's a crass business decision based on what gives me the best possibilities to push my product. It has nothing to do with "ethical superiority of free software", which some of my loftier friends tries to suggest when discussing this stuff.

So is there any way to tell whether what I am doing is STO or not? Well, in my view it has a lot to do with the predictable consequences of my actions. One of the main goals with the software is to "empower the individual", and also "give individuals the control over their own life". This will directly help the mental health of people who use it, it will make commandbased leadership less useful in favor of networking and enabling leadership, while at the same time giving companies who use it an edge over others who do not embrace this. These are the predictable consequences of the software, which I feel is a Good Thing.

In general that is. Because what if the military decides to use it, and by doing so become more efficient at what they do. Would that then make the software, or my contributions in making it, less STO? How can that be valued? I don't know. These are tricky questions, and there are no easy answers, but at least asking these questions goes a long way in trying to understand whether to do someting or not, based on the STO vs STS dynamic.

Or so I think right now anyway. My views on this difficult topic may change in light of new information.
 
An STS world is defined by relative ignorance. So to be more STO, we should try to be more knowledgeable.

I think I remember in a session somewhere it was said that STO does not mean "good" but rather "knowledgeable" in an "objective knowledge" sense.

This makes sense (at least to me) because STO is best defined by knowledge rather than moral judgements that can be all too human and therefore not very objectively knowledgeable.

It also makes sense because the more knowledge you have, the more STO you become, by definition, because the opposite path "STS" is one that is ultimately defined by wishful thinking, i.e. a fundamental and ultimate lack of knowledge of objective reality. That is to say, STS ultimately wishes or aims for "nothingness", which cannot exist, and the STS path is, therefore, ultimately a dead end.

So while some individuals who progress on the STS path may have a lot of knowledge, they ultimately lack "objective" knowledge.

So if we want to be more STO, then we just have to continue on the path of gathering and applying objective knowledge, i.e. seeing reality as it is, rather than as we would like it to be. If reality as it is, is basically about growth and creativity, then anyone progressing on that path will appear to be increasingly "STO" i.e. "good", at least to us.
 
Back
Top Bottom