My random thought for the day provoked by a series of articles in The Wire that keep irritating me.
I believe there's at least two inter-dependent types of value. I'll call it two for the sake of this post.
To me, there's "shared value" and there's "object value."
"Shared value" is value that exists when a thing is shared.
"Object value" is value that exists when a thing is created.
Jesus Lizard's Liar album for example... one of my favorite albums.
I'm suspicious of the idea that proclaims "not sharing a thing strips it of it's value." Jesus Lizard's Liar would be a pretty great record even if there was only one copy of the album and you could only listen to it by flying to France and crawling into a hidden cave on your belly and handcranking the record player.
I am also suspicious of the idea that proclaims "not sharing a thing makes something more valuable." My love for Jesus Lizard's Liar is enhanced when I hear 8-bit remixes of their song "Boilermaker" and when I add that song to mixes I make for my friends.
If you only share a thing without recognizing the object value of the thing you have betrayed the thing.
If you only covet the thing without recognizing the shared value of the thing you have also betrayed the
Update: Thank's to @debcha for the link to Nina Paley's Culture is Anti-Rivalrous post. and @fielderblank
and I had a nice exchange that got me to thinking about "the maker" and
how they instantiate the object and the resulting value-chain attached
to that object.