Posts Tagged ‘Libervis’

Updates and Memeverse Media consolidation

Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

Time flies and it’s been a while of it since the last Memeverse update. Even though it may sometimes seem like it I almost never sit idle. And even if I’m sitting idle chances are my mind is racing… I think too much, but I don’t act as much on my thoughts – yet.

Notable things I did do since last time was the following:

I’m still in a pretty bad financial shape though, just barely covering the costs. I guess I’m not much of a business person yet (too much thinking, too little acting like I said), but I’m getting there and I’m far from giving up. In fact the shiniest things are yet to come and this is what I wanna dedicate the rest of my post.

I was for a long while on and off pretty obsessed with just getting things right with regards to my attitude towards work, life and success. Even after being fairly confident I properly answered the question “what I love to do” over this year alone I’ve revisited it again at least twice always coming roughly to the same answer, but perhaps expressed a little differently. Lately I went and rounded it all up with other tough questions like “what my purpose is” and “what I want to be” after reading excellent stuff from Jonathan Mead and this little book called Curly’s Law. Part of the reason why I revisited those questions is the big issue I have with typical advice on focus as means to success. Somehow “do one thing” never ever could sit well with me, at least if it means what it seems to mean on its face.

I couldn’t drop my other projects. I tried for a while to make my “One Thing” and focus primarily if not ONLY on it and while it is most resonant with what I want to accomplish I feel technology in general and Linux specifically and even music are too big parts of my interests, of who I am, to just let go. Focusing on “One Thing” among them felt like peeling away a part of myself. How can I succeed the right way if I have to cut out a part of myself to do it? Something’s fishy about that. Besides, I wrote myself: “If it doesn’t feel natural don’t force it” and I believe that.

Jonathan Mead seems to agree with that kind of philosophy. A lot of what he writes resonates quite deeply with the way I think. His slogan is “live on your own terms”. Imagine that. He wrote an article which was of special interest to me: ADD Is Your Friend or Why Distractions Are The Key To Your Success. Albeit he doesn’t necessarily depart from the “focus on one thing” advice he does very much acknowledge the need to be a little distracted and allow yourself to pursue other things. Then in the comments came a guy who linked to Curly’s Law, a little book I mentioned before, which lays out an idea which in some form I’ve already reached in my thinking, but really needed someone else to confirm as something that makes sense.

The idea is that “One Thing” doesn’t have to mean “One Project” or “One Activity”. What IS the “thing”? It could merely be one thing that is in common to everything you’re interested in and everything you love to do. Find that one commonality and even when you do multiple things (projects, activities), you’ll still be focusing on one thing plus you’ll know how to predict when a particular project or activity wont fulfill you too long. If it doesn’t have that “thing” (thang?) of yours.. it probably wont last. And I was already at a point where all the right puzzles were with me.. when this confirmation came I think it pretty much clicked or is starting to click. I know my one thing.

My one thing is what I already made up a word for: DoublePlusHuman. I can literally speak for hours about what we should be and since the human world is built of human individuals what the world should be as a result. I ultimately managed to define DoublePlusHuman as an individual who is free of all self-contradiction, coercion and superstition. Promotion of, becoming of and building a world of DoublePlusHuman is what my purpose in life is and this is merely an upgrade of everything I ever thought my purpose was before (like being a socially aware entrepreneur). What I want to become is a successful, personally powerful entrepreneur that can influence individuals and thus the world towards that, DoublePlusHuman vision.

Interestingly, and, my other main projects (and in relation to Nuxified even the possibly upcoming all fit this vision because technology fits it. Since DoublePlusHuman is about getting rid of self-contradiction it is about getting rid of self-sacrifice (what people commonly call a sacrifice isn’t always a sacrifice if you did it of your own values) and so called “selflessness”. Instead a DoublePlusHuman will without guilt admit to his or her nature as a being that wishes to flourish and grow, to achieve his or her dreams no matter how wild. Technology is just something we create in pursuit of many of such dreams. It is the extension of who we are and a direct effect of our continued evolution.

DoublePlusHumans without technology aren’t DoublePlusHumans. Luddites might disagree with me, but maybe not once they understand how exactly I view technology. People who fear technology are people who’ve been burned by its negative uses. I promote positive uses as the outcome of being DoublePlusHuman – uses of technology which are not self-contradictory, but self-fulfilling, not coercive upon yourself and others, but empowering of yourself and others and not in pursuit of superstition based causes (like flying airplanes, a great example of technology, against people of a different religion). Luddites, fear not technology. Fear the human beings who suffer from a severe infection of bad memes that put them at war with themselves and others.

This purpose is the ultimate purpose of nearly everything I do online or everything I do period. And these activities and projects is what I branded as “Memeverse Media”. It’s good to put a name on it because it’s like putting a dot at the end of a sentence, a variable that refers to something real and meaningful. I am me and Memeverse Media is what I do. What exactly is it?

It’s a conglomeration of projects and activities meant to promote the memes of DoublePlusHumans through writing, multimedia production and everything that underpins and feeds such efforts. I will be writing about it. I’ll make music and videos in the name of these ideas. I will be creating financially profitable projects to pay for its expansion. I eventually want to get to the point where Memeverse Media will spawn whole drama and science fiction movies that inspire people to think in this way and share this vision and its pursuit with me.

The ultimate outcome I hope for is that it will become big enough to not only serve as a way of promoting these ideas and such a vision of the world, but in practical terms build it. This is partly why I’ve already registered which will be in the relatively near future home a blog and a community about spacesteading, a natural future outcome of seasteading. Just in case we cannot free this world from self-defeating attitudes, we will plan to venture into space, build our homes there.

I want to be a part of such a project one day.

But back to the present.. the next thing up is further consolidation of Memeverse Media. I need to finish the upgrade and redesign of (which was blocked by a severe technical issue I couldn’t resolve yet) so that it can be brought to the fold in new light, with a new slogan and a revitalized focus. These three projects will be the focal point, but I will also be trying to produce additional material, such as an ebook and eventually a membership site that I will charge for which are likely to be a part of I will also be making music and then music videos that promote the DoublePlusHuman vision, specific sites and Memeverse Media. I might also start writing science fiction which might provide the basis for future movies.

I will also be engaged part of the time in what I call “site flipping”, that is, letting myself experiment with various interesting project ideas and see if I can make them either financially or memetically complement the Memeverse Media purpose and otherwise “flip them” (sell them to a better owner) which can generate a little bit of extra cashflow while essentially serving as a Research & Development portion of my activities.

All in all, I want to inspire you, motivate you, make you shake with excitement of possibilities that exist for the future if we should only adopt the right memeverse in our minds.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

New articles on and

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Yesterday I finished writing a follow up to my last article against “intellectual property” (“Intellectual Property” a Violation of Real Property) in an attempt to clarify some things and answer some objections brought about in discussions of the last article. You can read it here: Implications of rejecting “intellectual property”.

This time I have not submit it to where most of the objections originated. I do not wish to participate on that site anymore because of what I believe is the intellectually smothering culture that tends to develop there partly as a result of intellectual dishonesty of certain incumbents and partly due to a flawed and problematic “terms of use” policy which bans political and religious discussion in a one-liner failing to clearly define the boundaries of what they are. Thus some people use this condition in terms of service whenever they cannot properly address the arguments that don’t go in their favor. They arbitrarily make their own definition of “political discussion” (even when it contradicts to what they themselves express elsewhere) and claim a “TOS violation” that would have the discussion locked or deleted.

This is BS and I will not stand for it. In fact, this sort of thing may just well see the rise of a competing service.

I’ve written two other articles on unrelated topics on my new site,

* Justice is not about vengeance, punishment or obedience and

* Your children ARE DoublePlusHuman

I was less analytical in them than I usually am, but then again being too analytical can sometimes be a pretty dry and long read. So I think it might be a good idea to sometimes just let out some opinions and some basic argumentation behind them in between the more analytical pieces.

When writing the last one about children, I became fairly emotional by the end. This is the sort of thing which really strikes the note in two ways at the same time, personal and in general pertaining to the state of the world as it is. I really think a lot rests in how we treat our children and what kinds of personal relationships, especially in family, do we foster.

That’s that for this update.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

About the controversial Modern Warfare 2 “No Russian” scene

Friday, November 13th, 2009

This morning I checked out an interesting thread on Freedomain Radio forums and followed a link to video showing “Call of duty Modern Warfare 2 Terrorist mission” (NSFW, pretty stomach turning material). I was shocked. It was enough to inspire some thinking and searching for more info about the scene and as it turned out it was already causing quite a bit of controversy.

Since the topic seems fitting for the purpose of I thought it would be a good idea to turn some of these thoughts into an article. Here is it: “Modern Warfare 2 jolts the player awake with a question: what kind of a world is this?”

It’s basically a commentary on the “No Russian” scene from the newly released “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2″ and some speculative exploration of implications of this kind of entertainment with regards to our culture.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Two new Libervis articles.

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

After nearly a year of pause (at least in terms of new articles as I’ve still been publishing some references/links), I’ve published two new articles on This follows after a redesign and a revision that was done recently which is meant to revive this long standing project as one of the key components in my web publishing “agenda”.

Here are the new articles:

1. How phishing scams show the need to evolve with technology

2. “Intellectual Property” a Violation of Real Property

The first reflects one of the basic issues that the site’s content is and will be tackling, which is the issue of our mental, cultural and social preparedness for the power of new technologies. Since it gives power to its user which can be both negative and positive technology changes the potential of certain mental, cultural and social norms to affect the society.

Second article is more philosophical, but mainly pertains to the issue we’ve been addressing since the founding of, which is the issue of proprietary software and Free Software and the currently believed paradigm that copyright law operates on. Software is a type of technology whereas copyright law and this “intellectual property” paradigm reflects some social and cultural norms. This has consequences some of which have been outlined in that article. will continue to actively be used to address issues all across the spectrum that lies between society and culture as we know it and the technology that we use from such a perspective. I think it’s a set of issues which is going to tremendously increase in importance as the accelerating technological evolution continue in face of all the social, cultural and economic turmoil and shifting.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 94 Comments »

Exploring the power of technology at

Monday, July 21st, 2008

This is the basic tenet behind modern, a site which is dedicated to gathering people to explore technology and the powers that it gives us, particularly with regards to ways in which this power can be used in favor or to detriment of individual freedoms.

The official announcement of the new and most dramatic revision of the site has been made, designed to encourage people to come in and explore. Please see the and also help spread the word about the site by digging the story.

Thank you!

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments »

Redefining Freedomware

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

“Freedomware” is a marketing term for Free Software which conventially refers to software that is licensed in a way that grants the software user rights corresponding to the four freedoms devised by Richard Stallman.

Many believe that licensing software with these rights, and offering it along with source code which is a precondition to exercising these rights, is the only moral and/or ethical way of offering and distributing software. Others may merely concede that it is ethically superior, but not necessarily the only ethical way or even that ethics doesn’t even enter the picture and that it is merely a practical concern.

Rarely, if ever, does anyone take issue with the act of “licensing” itself as it is understood by most people today. As such licensing essentially involves a software developer combining a chosen piece of text or his own piece of text with another piece of text written by someone from the organization called government to form a set of rules which, as the general belief is, must be respected under the threat of force if you don’t.

Don’t look so surprised. Every set of rules that comes from the government organization and is usually called “law” is forced. There appears to be no exceptions.

That said, since I don’t believe in initiatory force I don’t believe in government nor law, and therefore I don’t believe in copyright law. You can tell that greatly alters my perspective of Free Software. I no longer see government as a valid party in the developer – user relationship and what a “copyright license” ends up being is nothing but a statement of probable requests by a developer to the user of conditions he wants to be met before and while the software he produced is used. I could call it a sort of a contract.

Furthermore I actually believe in developer’s right to state whichever conditions he wants stated for the use of software he originally made, no matter how restrictive they are. I believe, in fact, in his right to do just about anything that doesn’t involve force upon someone else.

And that’s a catch. :) In a circumstance in which all involved parties, unlike me, believe in the validity of government and law, therefore giving others the power to initiate force upon them, they also believe that a copyright license is forced. So when a developer’s conditions are too restrictive, those restrictions are forced on users, unless they choose to not get that software in the first place, which as we’ve seen was a pretty hard thing to do considering the fact that vast majority of software used to be under restrictive licenses.

What gave this threat of force teeth are numerous cases in which such force was indeed initiated, such as many homes raided in search for “pirated” software or music CDs etc. It was enough to show people that they have something to fear, albeit not quite enough to stop mass illegal file sharing from continuing.

In such conditions, in which everyone believes in this force as legitimate they would of course try to find just as legitimate means to impose conditions which are a little more favorable. Enter four freedoms, BSD, GPL etc..

These are copyright licenses just as any other and are therefore using the system of force just as any other. They just happen to be a little nicer in their requirements, according to most people. You are *allowed* to do more. It was definitely a path to *more* freedom and as freedom always does it spawned more innovation and production of software wealth.

Unfortunately, by depending on an anti-freedom system to exist, however, Free Software has not nor ever will, alone and by itself, give people true freedom and 100% of freedom. Richard Stallman, indeed, is not your savior. The proliferation of his ideology merely enabled an option which makes the force in the name of law more bearable, even if much more bearable. His copyleft may turn copyright may have turned the “default license” on its head, but it changed absolutely nothing about the nature of copyright as a set of rules forced on anyone.

Now, if everyone, like me, stopped believing in the validity of “government” and “law” they would also stop feeding the power of those professing to work for the “government” and “law”, removing the teeth of force. A developer still has every right to state his conditions, but the only laws that could enforce whatever these conditions are the laws of nature, or if he chooses so, his own fist or gun, in which case he’ll quickly find himself out of the software business and in the shame of ostracism, if not worse.

So a proprietary software equivalent in this situation would be software binaries offered by a developer under the conditions that it not be copied at all (perhaps with the exception of a backup copy) and that it is installed on only one computer at a time. If someone buys a copy of his software and specifically agrees to these conditions, yet breaks them by making more copies and installing on multiple machines, the developer would have all right to complain to the undersigned arbitration agency and seek damages.

The arbitration agent is an expert in law, but not the law some people wrote to force on everyone else, but the natural law, the reality, the science of things, including the nature of humans and human interaction. That said, it is still possible that an arbiter would sometimes judge that the user needs to pay small damages fee, but it is unlikely that it would ever be a prohibitively expensive sum. However, after a while it is likely that there would be a precedent set which would essentially determine that in reality there is nothing the user actually damaged the developer for.

The copies he gave are often to people who wouldn’t buy it anyway, yet neither of the copies made leave the developers with one less. Software is not moved from one location to another like physical objects. It’s multiplied. I don’t lose anything if you make a copy of a song I made and gave to you. It would also soon likely be determined that often times the user actually gave developer free marketing by sharing his software, even if against his will.

Before you know it it would simply be a normal free market practice to not even bother with such restrictive contract terms because they just don’t work in reality. Not only do they sooner or later put both the developer and the user through the arbitration costs, but denying people to do free marketing for them is just a bad business strategy, not to mention stupid.

Interestingly, this is something even today when most people believe in “law” and “government”, Sun Microsystem’s president Jonathan Sczwartz realized.

The conclusion is, in a free market without government proprietary software as we know it would be simply stupid. Today it exists because it can still count on governmental coercion and related institutions of force. As long as we cling to such surreal abstractness as “government” and “law” to justify initiatory force we will suffer this dichotomy between reality and our own shared belief (illusion).

Free Software is extremely likely to be the default consideration of everyone in the truly free market.

This is partly why being a voluntaryist far outweighs my being a free software supporter. I believe the problem of proprietary software will be resolved much more easily and much more naturally in a truly voluntaryist free market.

However, not enough people have realized the illusion that their belief in government and law institutes yet. Within those circumstances the way I would define Freedomware or Free Software is as software which has been offered to me without the threat of force for such uses which correspond to four freedoms defined by Richard Stallman, which happen to coincide with everything I might want to do with my software anyway, without anyone who does believe in law and government viewing me with contempt and wishing to force me from doing otherwise.

In other words, the realm of Freedomware is just a bubble within the current system of force in which I can do some things I want to do without force being threatened against me for such actions. This is, of course, what makes Freedomware largely preferable to me, but since these rights provisioned for me via Freedomware licenses still totally depend on the system I oppose and invalidate it’s a rather awkward situation. I therefore will not promote “better copyright licenses” as a reason for people to consider free software.

Some might make that statement to mean that I am withdrawing from the free software movement, considering that some might consider the freer licensing to be THE definition of free software. But I find a little more in it: the culture and the mentality. Even if I forget the licenses, the law, the government, all that crap, I’m still left with the culture of sharing that developed around the concept that software should be free. There is still the mentality which makes people not mind if I something they made is shared.

That kind of mentality and that kind of culture is the kind of mentality I want to thrive in a free market and therefore I will continue to stand by it.

Where does that put my involvement with GNU/Linux Matters and Freedomware Marketing I am yet to decide. How do I promote this culture without promoting copyright law and the current system that involves coercive government?

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 41 Comments » Reborn

Wednesday, May 28th, 2008

I am excited to say that the work on the new is pretty much finished. It is just about ready for an official (re)launch announcement. This probably biggest rebirth of marks what I see as a milestone for Libervis Network as after months of stagnation something great is happening again. I have big plans for it. I will start what should amount to the biggest promotional campaign in a while, including a promotional video, in order to boost as a project of building a community of technology enthusiasts passionate about freedom.

Then as the community reignites we will possibly churn out a few cooperative initiatives, or help existing or already planned ones. Mind you these initiatives may not necessarily be on behalf of this abstractness that I call “Libervis Network”, but completely independent, developed and created by people who came to the site, found common passions and developed a cool project to work on. What I will do, however, is provide the help that I can to kick start what we find to be the best projects among them, by providing them initial hosting space, a free subdomain or a full domain name and basic support – IF they need it of course. :)

The whole point is to bring together unique individuals especially interested in technology, but also in the effect its use has on individual freedom – and start a tolerant and open minded discourse, helping each other think better, understand more and see what we have in common as seeds of what we could cooperate on. is essentially like an open space, an agora, a “free market” of thoughts and ideas, bent on technology and freedom – everyone is welcome.

Check it out: And stay tuned! :)

More about you can read here, including briefly its history.

Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments »