Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on August 19, 2010 at 6:23pm

Atypican,
I developed the idea of Open Source Religion and run the site. Of course I will influence how it develops, but more specifically in the beginning. There are two factors at play in that:
1. In the beginning a project like this must have an individual behind it to form the idea, pick the right platform, influence growth, etc, etc. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.
2. Later on (and ultimately my goal since the idea here is 'open source') the project ought to be almost completely in the hands of the public. But even then there must be an individual who determines the archiving system as you suggest, or how spam is dealt with, or what sort of atmosphere is most productive for the cause, or even whether certain contributions are even relevant.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with intellectual rights. Perhaps you could delve into this more for me.

"Many of the things that catch your fascination are not all that interesting to others who would otherwise be great OSR advocates."

This line interests me. Who are these advocates and are they proposing something much different than what we are already attempting to establish?

Nobody is working closely with me on this project. That's part of the problem. It takes immense problem solving capability and the ability to devote the time to do that. At this time I'm devoted to paying rent. The future looks bright though, regardless of the fact that OSR just might go down in a couple days (but only for a little while I'm sure).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on August 19, 2010 at 6:24pm

Glad to see some fire for the project. Now what can you propose to help us move it along?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by atypican on August 21, 2010 at 3:42am

I developed the idea of Open Source Religion and run the site.

I am glad to read your careful choice of "developed" as opposed to "came up with"

Of course I will influence how it develops, but more specifically in the beginning. There are two factors at play in that:
1. In the beginning a project like this must have an individual behind it to form the idea, pick the right platform, influence growth, etc, etc. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.

No just this, your expression of OSR wouldn't exist. Believe me, you snatched up a great name. If you didn't someone else would have. Did you create the initial wikipedia article on OSR?

2. Later on (and ultimately my goal since the idea here is 'open source') the project ought to be almost completely in the hands of the public. But even then there must be an individual who determines the archiving system as you suggest, or how spam is dealt with, or what sort of atmosphere is most productive for the cause, or even whether certain contributions are even relevant.

It needs to be an archiving system. It can be built using existing gpl software. The programming skills needed to do it are not that advanced. But my thinking is that it needs to be centered around enabling people to fashion individualized collections of recordings deemed valuable for religious or secular reasons irrespectively.

I don't think the emphasis on all sharing a common "source code" productive. We are not so concerned with the forms It's not an advanced concept, it's a simple concept. Compile your own collection of recordings.

I hope I am correct in assuming you have no intention of starting a religion.

Now if you think you can create a compilation attractive enough by talking about how all these latest scientific discoveries actually validate religion and spirituality run with it. My thinking is the site should be designed to make it easy and worthwhile for someone to begin the process of what I term "Self-Canonization", But that's related to the approach I've been developing.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with intellectual rights. Perhaps you could delve into this more for me.

Sure. Do you know about the controversy surrounding software patents?


"Many of the things that catch your fascination are not all that interesting to others who would otherwise be great OSR advocates."

This line interests me. Who are these advocates and are they proposing something much different than what we are already attempting to establish?

I was thinking of how your source code is being laid out. Very different than my approach would be. Not that I see anything wrong with your approach it's just the one most attractive to you. Maybe you like to catalog recent scientific research that is thought to impact spirituality. I want to get people to start compiling their own collections.

OSR has implications that distinguish it's practice from what is normally thought of as religion, namely that it is collaboration not indoctrination centric.

The promotion of the collaborative relationship as an alternative to the predominate authoritative relationship is what opensource is all about. Religion (as its most commonly understood) does not exist without the authoritative relationship. This is why people who know darn well they have and use every day what amounts to their own religion, can with a straight face and for good reason claim not to have a religion and may even consider themselves anti-religion.

They're really against aspects of religion they find objectionable. Like when it is of an overly authoritarian nature. An organization set up to promote OSR in general shouldn't be so interested to see how many people it can get to adopt a certain collection. Rather how many people can it get to start along the path of thinking more for themselves. decentralizing religious influence.

Nobody is working closely with me on this project. That's part of the problem.

e-mail me and let's interview one another.

It takes immense problem solving capability and the ability to devote the time to do that.

You aren't creating or developing a religion here (other than perhaps your own). You are (with open source technologies) showing a different way of looking at religion.

At this time I'm devoted to paying rent. The future looks bright though, regardless of the fact that OSR just might go down in a couple days (but only for a little while I'm sure).

I'd love to help. What I see with your site is a great idea that's starting to look pointless.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by atypican on August 21, 2010 at 11:10am

Ok. I think that special care needs to be taken to NOT form a religion. Special care should be taken to keep the face of OSR clear of material offensive to a potential users current religious sentiments. OSR should be thought of as the essence of non-denominationalism. OSR is not about rallying as many people as we can around a body of ideas, but instead rather get as many people as we can to just plain understand the fundamentals.

The contrast we want to call to attention is between the authoritative and the collaborative relationship. Our demographic is already wanting to make the transition but could use some non-leading tools.

Open Source is a significant deviation from the way ideas are too often exchanged and learning relationships are commonly established. Less education more learning. It's a big deal, but a very simple idea.

Nothing a few thoughtful folks - Through targeted dialog couldn't articulate in a pretty short time.

And at hardly any expense.

I think you should consider using google groups for some targeted discussion. here

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on August 21, 2010 at 2:59pm

I am glad to read your careful choice of "developed" as opposed to "came up with"

Google OSR and you'll find there are many variations on the concept, none of which nail it like I did. I don't see why it would matter much whether I said that I came up with it or developed it. Yoism's version has...pictures of South Park and such, I really am not sure what their version is. Church of Reality has their own model that isn't really open source at all, and the examples go on. Our version here is the only truly open source model of religion there is. I came up with it. Should I dedicate that credit to someone else who didn't?

No just this, your expression of OSR wouldn't exist. Believe me, you snatched up a great name. If you didn't someone else would have. Did you create the initial wikipedia article on OSR?

Only partially correct. Yes, my version of OSR would not exist. Also, truly open source religion would not exist. And yes, I am involved in the Wikipedia article on OSR, it needs altering.

I hope I am correct in assuming you have no intention of starting a religion.

Not technically. Really it is the people here that are starting or redefining their own religions.

Sure. Do you know about the controversy surrounding software patents?
"Many of the things that catch your fascination are not all that interesting to others who would otherwise be great OSR advocates."

This is not a very enlightening paragraph for someone who is asking for you to expand on your meaning of bringing up patents.

They're really against aspects of religion they find objectionable. Like when it is of an overly authoritarian nature. An organization set up to promote OSR in general shouldn't be so interested to see how many people it can get to adopt a certain collection. Rather how many people can it get to start along the path of thinking more for themselves. decentralizing religious influence.

I can agree with this. Good thoughts. Perhaps I should gear some of the wording on the site more toward this direction.

I'll message you my number.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on August 21, 2010 at 3:08pm

Atypican, I like your simple approach to this.

You're saying to focus a couple things from what I understand...
1. The ability for members to archive and collect aspects (beliefs) of all belief systems.
2. Focus branding edge toward the fact that we provide a collaborative platform for beliefs, not authoritative.

I'd like you to take a look at http://www.mymythos.org (another site of mine, also unfinished) in which members are supposed to explore and collect beliefs of all different kinds (each called a mythos). My long term goal is to forge a tight relationship between MyMythos and OSR.

I think the next biggest question here is regarding when you were talking about archiving software and how it doesn't take much skill to produce such a thing...we need that. I've long been searching for a platform (WetPaint, Ning, Wordpress, etc, etc) that would provide an easy space for us to do this.

Thank you for your passion for the cause. Once it's running smoothly and easily, I have no doubt it could be an immense endeavor. If you have some of the answers we are looking for then I'd like to communicate with you a great deal more and will certainly give credit where it is due.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by atypican on August 21, 2010 at 5:08pm

Google OSR and you'll find there are many variations on the concept, none of which nail it like I did. I don't see why it would matter much whether I said that I came up with it or developed it.

Strike a nerve there?

"Whatever sentence will bear to be read twice, we may be sure was thought twice.” ~ Thoreau

“The greatest genius will never be worth much if he pretends to draw exclusively from his own resources.” ~Goethe

“What a person thinks on his own without being stimulated by the thoughts and experiences of the other people is even in the best case rather paltry and monotonous” ~Einstein

“Originality is the art of concealing your sources” ~Franklin

Yoism's version has...pictures of South Park and such, I really am not sure what their version is.

They want to be a religion. I appreciate the idea that humor should play a role in understanding the serious. Somethings they nail better than you.

Church of Reality has their own model that isn't really open source at all, and the examples go on.

Marc is trying to be a religion too. And he nails some things better than you. He already understands things that need to be explained to you. Such as what the GPL is and what intellectual rights are at stake, that OSR makes use of.

Our version here is the only truly open source model of religion there is. I came up with it.

Oy vey! - I disagree with you.

Should I dedicate that credit to someone else who didn't?

I think you should think less about how much you are going to be credited for this.


And yes, I am involved in the Wikipedia article on OSR, it needs altering.

applause!!! Glory be to thee and all that. The flat out truth is that you in no way can be credited with coming up with the concept. I am also "involved" with the wikipedia article. Anyone can view what you introduced there. Which like my contribution, was but a shameless plug.

This is not a very enlightening paragraph for someone who is asking for you to expand on your meaning of bringing up patents.

The portion in quotations was not part of that response.

I was trying to find out if you were familiar with the issues and legislation surrounding software patents. I find it odd that I am introducing a key open source concept to the guy who came up with OSR!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on August 22, 2010 at 1:19pm

Given your round of quotes it would seem that if I'd invented the wheel I should credit the shape of the sun, or if I'd invented glass I should credit whomever discovered fire. Why are you so obsessed with the idea that I believe I came up with an original take on Open Source Religion?
You say...

I think you should think less about how much you are going to be credited for this.

But it isn't me making attacks of who came up with what. You claim I should have no credit for my own idea, I therefor rebut that claim. Then because I rebut your claim you claim that I shouldn't care about being credited my own idea. What a strange and roundabout way to debate something. I'm beginning to think an ulterior motive is presenting itself.

That's wonderful that you are more versed in patents and licensing than myself. I applaud the fact that someone knows something that would be useful to me. Why you hold it above my head and attempt to use it as an insult is beyond me as I've not presented any attack to your character or your project, not until you began making snide remarks to mine at least.

I have always invited people to help us with the project who I felt had expertise in fields that I do not. I don't pretend to know everything about the legislature and politics of open source movements. I never did. What I do understand is the spirit and execution of open source and how it could be greatly applied to a religious/spiritual atmosphere. If that is offensive to you then I'm not sure what else I can offer as I've already extended my hand to ask for help, and to help with your project where I may.

Lastly I'd like you to enlighten yourself to the principles we do have established here regarding OSR. If you did so you would realize that any other model of it simply doesn't cut it.

The activity of Open Source Religion is the cultivation and mixing of beliefs (be they from personal or external sources) in an individual regardless of the source of the belief. Thus the sources become open, thus the "religious software" of the individual becomes the open source application, being modified whenever the individual chooses. Thus belief in Jesus and Karma can coexist within one entity.

If your version of OSR is to "solidify" any beliefs into material that your members are "supposed" to adhere to: it isn't Open Source; it's just religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by atypican on August 22, 2010 at 10:59pm

Why are you so obsessed with the idea that I believe I came up with an original take on Open Source Religion?

I don't think I am obsessed with it. But after having read your response, I can see how I came across as snide. I don't want to do that. I apologize for that.

My mindset was to come and challenge you, the way I want to be challenged. I perhaps got a little overzealous, please forgive me. :)

I'm beginning to think an ulterior motive is presenting itself.

I'd like to be clear of my motives. I am not a follower.

Why you hold it above my head and attempt to use it as an insult is beyond me as I've not presented any attack to your character or your project, not until you began making snide remarks to mine at least.

Again I apologize.

Lastly I'd like you to enlighten yourself to the principles we do have established here regarding OSR. If you did so you would realize that any other model of it simply doesn't cut it.

I have read some nice blocks of text here. I can tell that you largely get it. Please think of me as a friendly opponent, when I tell you that...your typing of "any other model of it simply doesn't cut it." comes across quite proprietary sounding.

If your version of OSR is to "solidify" any beliefs into material that your members are "supposed" to adhere to: it isn't Open Source; it's just religion.

I don't intend to have members. Or create an organization around a body of ideas. But in case you don't think I'm a SOB already, I'll avoid plugging my project here :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on August 23, 2010 at 11:03pm

Friendly opponent I can do. No problem.

Truth is I've been attacked on such levels many times. I don't take that much offense, though it's a great way to get me to flare up a bit, which I actually enjoy. It reinstills my passion for my own beliefs of what OSR is all about.

And on that note I'd like to point out here what I pointed out in our email conversation: You cannot form an Open Source Religion without it being effected in some way by it's "founder". I believe my brand of OSR is not only the best of what's out there, but the ONLY true Open Source Religion. I welcome criticism of this. In fact, start a new thread on it if it suits you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kernel John on August 24, 2010 at 9:26am

Yes Sidian, you are the Founder of OSR and this makes us the followers of this extraordinary Brand you are creating? You make it sound like your Brand of OSR is alive and well.

The real question is - are you (and your followers) effective in what they doing - whatever that might be? Is the foundation built on rock or might it slip into the sand?

You suggest a discussion be initiated about the Brand you created. Why? You do not need this distraction. In order to achieve the results you are quick to boast about, you have much work yet to do. If 3 or 4 here were to catch a cold, there would be no traffic on this site. So, we'll watch to see what the founder of this site does next? Do you have ideas or a plan of some kind or are you waiting for this place to organically explode into a beehive of activity? Show us you stuff Sid. Let's start building your Brand. Enough talk. Time for action/direction/advancement.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sidian M.S. Jones on August 24, 2010 at 2:05pm

I do not consider anyone here as followers. OSR is about creating your own religion right? That's what you are following, your own belief system. OSR is just a mindset, a method of seeing and achieving that stance.

Also we are speaking of two different "brands" here. You are speaking of it in a company oriented, product sort of way. But what I meant was more synonymous with "style". As I say to Atypican, there are many styles of OSR out there.

However you have a good question regarding where we are going and what the plan is. I've been majorly busy lately. Before the whole breakup scenario with my significant other I was just catching the time to update OSR again. Disaster struck and now I'm working my butt off for my new job.

What it comes down to is pretty much what Atypican was saying about the writing and archiving of belief modules. How to do that effectively? Well that seems to be a dilemma I'm not entirely up to solving. Atypican says he knows of ways which is great. However we all remember when James Saint attempted his version. It was a mess.

I don't expect OSR to explode organically, not at this point. It needs a system, a working project right here on the site, easily accessible, easily altered. Once we have that, yes, we could see explosive growth.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page