iliafarniev

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Soviet Punk rock show shot on Svema T-42 AERO film in 80's --

developer formulation still remain classified<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

horse chestnut & Co<div></div>

<p>The way I look at it is like philosophers do not change the world [proportionally more than anybody else, that is] but the world is continuously changing in various ways and philosophers are the ones who figure the trends first. Probably because they are so smart and cooky. Which can be very irritating. And that's why noone loves them basically and so then they start to lay down to much for free and to show around in moral sense and make all kinds funny schemes and directions we basically put them behind the dollar sign but if they don't behave so usher them to the drinks, just like Lex mentioned - to keep their population under control.</p>

<p>The real problem IMo is not so much in how free philosophy is or should be but in how fast world is changing now. Cos then Rousseau for instance came up with idea that everythig is free and basically belongs to everyone by default they had a hundred years to chew on it not to mention the lots of everything what hadn't belonget to anyone, at least in the sense they had no paper work done to prove it and so on. Plus he had it communicatet to very limited number of closely dedicated friend all of whom were properly positioned in the structures. So, being in a way - resposible, they figured out slowly they can use it back then but now whole thing runs pritty fast and it is all on the paper, pre-paid by the money that doesn't even exist yet, and still all ours as before so naturally folks've been thinking alot again just how to get ahead. But this can be very confusin because of what shell we do, anyway?</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>good point Fred (-:</p>

<p>I think it's kind of noblier not to pay or be paid for philosophy - some real good ones could live in the barrel and still enjoyed weather for free. Because, if you start to pay for philosophy the philosophers naturally will start to put up the type of philosophy what pays most and we all know where this leads. Check Buddha and JC for instance - never got paid no money, never even asked for, instead were fully concentrated on the task matters at hand and did their job like we all should.</p>

<p>(-: Isn't it thuja bush in bg?</p>

<p>Well. Lets say, we can start from 10 cents/kB of solid good marketable philosophy and see where this will lead us to, then adjust the charge in accordance with actual demand. Besides, Kants books at Amazon still cost some, however free philosophy may be.</p>

<p>(-:</p>

<p>On the other hand the thought and thuse philosophy is pritty much like a lightning stricke - you can't undo it then it's already occured while it's O'kay to record it into formulated language making it a personal asset hopefuly marketable.</p>

<p>Ultimatelly, phylosophy is free but product [of philosophy] may or may not be free [of charge] circumstantially.</p>

<p>The whole point of market mechanism is to multiply money which means that sooner or later everything is going to be used.</p>

<p>Wow. That's pritty deep thought. How about it.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Schüle is right, I think. One can be ashamed of just about anything and most of us probably are. Then it is all bundled up and burried under the heavy reinforced concreet slab of being ashamed of being ashaimed, then fenced off with denial, avoidance and redflagged by habitual lack of communication skills.</p>

<p>Some even say it has been pushed up and moulded into a kind of continuously revolving guilt [syndrome] which in turn became a driving force of social progress in western civilization. One can naturally try to number them all with vengence, so to say, but conformity is useful thing too, so as aesthetic appeal.</p>

<p>So, I would thing it is all hinged on personal emotional setup, weather and things like that.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>