Embedded Files
Sometimes i get people asking me what I think of mediums, channels, authors, and life coaches who charge money for their products or services. I don't personally see a conflict outside of intent. Coming from an extremely conservative religious background while growing up, all religious information was basically free, if you sought it out. Although how it was disseminated and interpretation was tightly controlled by dogma, organizational structures and reward punishment models of belief practice. Such experience has had an influence on me though I do not approve. In that light I tend twords the more liberal religions such as Spiritualism, Quakers, and various other organizations. Basically I abhor Spirituality for sale in any form. Not that I have a problem with those who feel they need to make a living from it. Because everyone has their own path. That's fine. Just not my cup of tea. Personally I believe the only limits to knowledge are ones we self impose. That could be from lack of experience or dedication as well as things like laziness or ignorance. That said, for me, currently I think I am trending to totally open access to anything I write or do.
Why is unrestricted public access to any type of Spiritual information or research important?
Open Access vs. the traditional "book" or fee model.
My arguments for OA:
* frees authors and readers from needless access barriers to information.
* returns the control of scholarship to scholars. By increasing the author's impact, it advances the author's purpose in writing for impact rather than money.
* serves the under-served.
* reaches a wider audience at lower cost than toll-access forms of distribution.
* makes research literature and data available for crunching by new generations of sophisticated software (indexing, mining, summarizing, translating, linking, recommending, alerting, mash-ups, and other forms of processing).
* widens dialogue, builds community, and supports cooperation.
* accelerates research and increases the productivity of researchers.
Ideas are shared not for sale
Arguments against:
*Traditional models protect publishers.
* Traditional models generate income.
* Author and publishers have tighter control.
* Control over audience is more assured.
* Inclusiveness and exclusiveness is regulated.
* Ideas and beliefs can be sold
* contact with outside can be more easily screened, Bigger budget means the potential for large audiences quickly.
* Easier access to big audience medias
* More formats (can) mean more diverse audience depending on publisher and producer
As you can see this is a really biased and loaded topic. But it's just my two cents. Thank you open access that I can post it!
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse