[p2p-research] the abundance of art

[marc fawzi]

Better still, maybe the physical object we "see" is not the object that
is.... maybe it is A LOT MORE than what our eyes tell us and maybe our other
senses, including senses we don't know of scientifically, are telling us
something about the original physical object (e.g. the original painting)
that make us see it's uniqueness even if it's atomically identical to 10
million other copies of itself.

When it comes to digital objects our senses tell us that the identical
digital copy is indeed identical to the original.

That's the only feasible explanation I have, i.e. that physical objects have
more to them than we can sense using our known senses.

So the conclusion I'm making is that we are either irrational by design or
the world around us is not what it seems.


On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:26 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Just to continue:
>
> <<
>
>> I hear your argument saying that what is scarce is not necessarily unique.
>>
>>
>> For example, water is scarce in some parts of the world but it is not
>> unique.
>>
>> However, anything that is unique or rare is by definition scarce.
>>
>> It's an unidirectional synonym! i.e. synonym in just one direction: if A
>> is unique/rare then A is scarce ; if A is scarce then A may or may not be
>> unique/rare.
>>
>
> >>
>
> When we give an original painting some unique emotional or artistic value
> even when we can replicate it down to the atomic scale and distribute it
> freely then that is when emotional or psychic attachment to an object
> (always physical; does not seem apply to digital) becomes an issue and a
> cause for concern that we may never overcome the artificial scarcity problem
> because people seem to attach unique value to something (e.g. a famous
> painting) that can be copied in exact form down to the atomic scale and
> distributed freely.
>
> It's a general logical problem, not specific to paintings or art but
> applicable to all physical objects (that people attach unique value to, e.g.
> a pair of socks that was worn by Obama on inauguration day may fetch
> $10,000.... why? where does that value come from? it comes from the scarce
> quality we give to those socks but why do we do that? and don't you think we
> created money in such a way that t enforces scarcity BECAUSE we actually
> seek scarcity? That's what I'm asking in the broad context.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:13 AM, <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> very important questions indeed
>>>
>>> but  scarcity and uniqueness and rarity are not synonms nor are
>>> semantically equivalent, imho
>>>
>>> same as
>>>
>>>
>>> value and price are not synonyms
>>>
>>> a unique piece of art is of no practical use really
>>>  when hungry or thirsty, its trade value that can generate
>>> a breadcrumb, and I agree, thats where the whole economic mechanism
>>> builds on and distorts the real value of things
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So ... why? Why do we seek scarcity (uniqueness, rarity) ? It's
>>>> instilled in us.
>>>>
>>>> It's not intrinsic to the money. We made the money. And it's not
>>>> intrinsic to nature either as natural evolution is taking us to a stateof
>>>> existence where everything (physical and digital) can be copied
>>>> (identically) and distributed freely.
>>>>
>>>> So ... why?
>>>>
>>>> Why do _WE_ enforce (or seek to have) scarcity?
>>>>
>>>> That is my question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Marc Fawzi
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>



-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090503/09514938/attachment-0001.html>