3 ms·

Immaterialism

8 points by peter123 18y ago

lhorie 18y ago
I figure most people already internalized the idea to some extent, (given that this is a site geared towards online ventures), but my gut feeling is that, unconsciously, we might be putting a tad too much focus on the "virtual", and at some point we'll need to swing back to "real" side of the world when considering going into entrepreneurship.
dkarl 18y ago
We've been over this ad nauseam in the case of digital music. People have been paying to hear music or see flickering images on a screen for a long, long time. As long as the transaction was centered on a physical object, like a CD or a DVD, we psychologically attached the value to the object. When the object became an inconvenience, we realized we were paying for something intangible. So we got cleared that little cognitive hurdle, no problem. Now it's normal to buy music on iTunes. This New York Times article does its best to confuse the issue by concentrating on buying intangible items that are virtual representations of real objects. That drives home the contrast between real and virtual in a way that music doesn't, since it's easy to accept that music is intangible, but we're used to thinking of otters and swords as tangible items. Yet in the final analysis, it's no different from music; it's just a clever way for a journalist to take something commonplace and make it seem weird.
- frossie 18y ago
  Not that I want to defend journalists but I can see why they thought this was of special interest. If I give you you a .wav of Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, I am gifting you something meaningful - an experience, a feeling of awe, or relaxation or whatever your reaction to listening it will be. I consider that to be of value. If someone asks you "And what did she give you for your birthday" you can say "Stabat Mater! The Kirkby/Bowman recording!" and nobody would ask "Was that a CD or on iTunes"? They would understand both the nature and the intent of the gift. It's yours the same way the CD was yours - you have the ability to listen to it whenever you want at no cost to you. Therefore you, the recipient, continue to derive value. I think the reason the journalist is boggling with the otter thing, is that it appears to be of no value to them, and doubts that it is of any value to the donor either (unlike Aunt Edna's horrid sweater, which while it may not be of any value to Cousin Johnny, it is at least of value to her, and she thinks, albeit mistakenly, that it might be of value to him, and also has a material cost). So I think they are surprised that someone can pay real money to transact something that has no intrinsic value nor any usage value to either the gifter or the recipient. Which does put it in a different category than digital music.

8 points by peter123 18y ago

I figure most people already internalized the idea to some extent, (given that this is a site geared towards online ventures), but my gut feeling is that, unconsciously, we might be putting a tad too much focus on the "virtual", and at some point we'll need to swing back to "real" side of the world when considering going into entrepreneurship.

dkarl 18y ago

We've been over this ad nauseam in the case of digital music. People have been paying to hear music or see flickering images on a screen for a long, long time. As long as the transaction was centered on a physical object, like a CD or a DVD, we psychologically attached the value to the object. When the object became an inconvenience, we realized we were paying for something intangible. So we got cleared that little cognitive hurdle, no problem. Now it's normal to buy music on iTunes. This New York Times article does its best to confuse the issue by concentrating on buying intangible items that are virtual representations of real objects. That drives home the contrast between real and virtual in a way that music doesn't, since it's easy to accept that music is intangible, but we're used to thinking of otters and swords as tangible items. Yet in the final analysis, it's no different from music; it's just a clever way for a journalist to take something commonplace and make it seem weird.

frossie 18y ago
Not that I want to defend journalists but I can see why they thought this was of special interest. If I give you you a .wav of Pergolesi's Stabat Mater, I am gifting you something meaningful - an experience, a feeling of awe, or relaxation or whatever your reaction to listening it will be. I consider that to be of value. If someone asks you "And what did she give you for your birthday" you can say "Stabat Mater! The Kirkby/Bowman recording!" and nobody would ask "Was that a CD or on iTunes"? They would understand both the nature and the intent of the gift. It's yours the same way the CD was yours - you have the ability to listen to it whenever you want at no cost to you. Therefore you, the recipient, continue to derive value. I think the reason the journalist is boggling with the otter thing, is that it appears to be of no value to them, and doubts that it is of any value to the donor either (unlike Aunt Edna's horrid sweater, which while it may not be of any value to Cousin Johnny, it is at least of value to her, and she thinks, albeit mistakenly, that it might be of value to him, and also has a material cost). So I think they are surprised that someone can pay real money to transact something that has no intrinsic value nor any usage value to either the gifter or the recipient. Which does put it in a different category than digital music.