You can only get caught for plagiarism when people find the original piece of work; until then you are the genius.
-Kimi
It is somewhat an ironic form of gratification that the impetus to me writing again is an accusation of plagiarism by an anonymous comment on the tagboard which I created with the intent of appreciation. At least I know that someone is running through the posts that were meant for little more than the value of relics.
It so happens that I might be, interestingly, a very likely candidate for plagiarising items. There are many things that I wish I have done and it so happens that I wish I had written much of Stapledon and Dawkins. I find it a method to appreciate their work in what you might call an estranged and rather irritating way.
I write on plagiarism because of my fascination on the subject and my perspective of it being synonymous to inspiration. To plagiarise is to steal from the original author and claim that item to be your own. What makes the phenomenon interesting is it being a method used to steal credit and praise which does not belong. However, the controversy that I wish to so desperately introduce involves confusing plagiarism with inspiration.
For very long, I have pondered on the logic of free libraries. To read, I believe is the ultimate form of plagiarism. Through the acquisition of knowledge from a book, I am allowed to use the knowledge in the form of application without acknowledging the author or publisher. Better yet, I am even allowed to interpret more than what author means from his book; in other words using content from the book as substrate to build wisdom that which it is not designed to provide. And in this form of application or extrapolation I am allowed to write something new altogether. What other worse method can there be to steal than to obtain them free altogether from a library?
It is difficult, however, to express my surprise with the criminal dualism of libraries without which I myself would not be able to fully express this thought in a clear and concise manner. The dualism is such that firstly it lends books for free which one might have been forced to purchase if he had not read it without cost. It seems obvious, surprisingly to me alone, that authors are losing revenue because public libraries lend the books for free without paying the publishers. Secondly, and more importantly, the rudimentary reading of books by itself is a form of plagiarism as expressed earlier. To perform such a crime for free seems only that it be actually encouraged in a crooked form. It is only for the sake of an argument and a different perspective that I point out the “crime” in free lending and (the sillier) reading of books. I most certainly bask in this costless pleasure, and it is only with the confidence that the introduction of such a perspective will have no impact on the existence of libraries and books that I dare write such an outrageous paper.
Nearly all authors that we read from are liable to plagiarism. In fact if the dictionaries were to lay claim to the words that are in them, almost all forms of writing would be in some way be an offence of plagiarism. I cannot however, explain the reasons of putting up excellent excerpts from my favourite books, without the risk of sounding defensive. Apart from the fact of wishing that I had written the excerpts that I have however acknowledged to the authors that they belong to (and thus am not liable to plagiarism), I put them up for the reason of sharing its brilliance with my audience and because of their relevance to the creation of this blog: To examine the nature of life and of cognition.
It is not my purpose to justify such a crime of stealing praise. However I wish to point out that without a certain degree of plagiarism and inspiration it would be impossible to produce brilliance. In my case, to create the brilliance of “On Purpose” I cannot do it alone but have to find help from the authors that I hold so close and dear.
I have for many times considered plagiarising work for the sake of praise but I understand that the nature of “On Purpose” (I state again) is not for the benefit of my audience but for the value of it being a relic of my profound intellect. I gain little from plagiarising, but nevertheless find a certain degree of joy today with the understanding that there are people finding my endeavour useful.
It is only with the words of Newton that I mustered courage to write such an outrageous essay on partially justifying this crime. Without his greatness much of what we see today would not exist. Although I do realise that such statements nearly always remain relegated to the realms of stupidity because if not for Newton there might have been a George or Alicia who might have completed what he had done if not having reproduced his exact brilliance. Whatever the case may be, the greatness of Newton was only made possible because of his predecessors. Thus George or Alicia or Newton together with the other great technological magic that we witness today will no longer exist if not for their inspiration and derivation from the work of predecessors. After all, even you and I are today comfortably couched on the broad shoulders of giants.
Of Kimi
24 Mar 09
Epilogue
I together with all of my sane audience find it comical to add an epilogue to such a silly and short piece of writing. However, I am forced to do so because of the risk of future accusation of plagiarism.
It so happens that I might be, interestingly, a very likely candidate for plagiarising items. There are many things that I wish I have done and it so happens that I wish I had written much of Stapledon and Dawkins. I find it a method to appreciate their work in what you might call an estranged and rather irritating way.
I write on plagiarism because of my fascination on the subject and my perspective of it being synonymous to inspiration. To plagiarise is to steal from the original author and claim that item to be your own. What makes the phenomenon interesting is it being a method used to steal credit and praise which does not belong. However, the controversy that I wish to so desperately introduce involves confusing plagiarism with inspiration.
For very long, I have pondered on the logic of free libraries. To read, I believe is the ultimate form of plagiarism. Through the acquisition of knowledge from a book, I am allowed to use the knowledge in the form of application without acknowledging the author or publisher. Better yet, I am even allowed to interpret more than what author means from his book; in other words using content from the book as substrate to build wisdom that which it is not designed to provide. And in this form of application or extrapolation I am allowed to write something new altogether. What other worse method can there be to steal than to obtain them free altogether from a library?
It is difficult, however, to express my surprise with the criminal dualism of libraries without which I myself would not be able to fully express this thought in a clear and concise manner. The dualism is such that firstly it lends books for free which one might have been forced to purchase if he had not read it without cost. It seems obvious, surprisingly to me alone, that authors are losing revenue because public libraries lend the books for free without paying the publishers. Secondly, and more importantly, the rudimentary reading of books by itself is a form of plagiarism as expressed earlier. To perform such a crime for free seems only that it be actually encouraged in a crooked form. It is only for the sake of an argument and a different perspective that I point out the “crime” in free lending and (the sillier) reading of books. I most certainly bask in this costless pleasure, and it is only with the confidence that the introduction of such a perspective will have no impact on the existence of libraries and books that I dare write such an outrageous paper.
Nearly all authors that we read from are liable to plagiarism. In fact if the dictionaries were to lay claim to the words that are in them, almost all forms of writing would be in some way be an offence of plagiarism. I cannot however, explain the reasons of putting up excellent excerpts from my favourite books, without the risk of sounding defensive. Apart from the fact of wishing that I had written the excerpts that I have however acknowledged to the authors that they belong to (and thus am not liable to plagiarism), I put them up for the reason of sharing its brilliance with my audience and because of their relevance to the creation of this blog: To examine the nature of life and of cognition.
It is not my purpose to justify such a crime of stealing praise. However I wish to point out that without a certain degree of plagiarism and inspiration it would be impossible to produce brilliance. In my case, to create the brilliance of “On Purpose” I cannot do it alone but have to find help from the authors that I hold so close and dear.
I have for many times considered plagiarising work for the sake of praise but I understand that the nature of “On Purpose” (I state again) is not for the benefit of my audience but for the value of it being a relic of my profound intellect. I gain little from plagiarising, but nevertheless find a certain degree of joy today with the understanding that there are people finding my endeavour useful.
It is only with the words of Newton that I mustered courage to write such an outrageous essay on partially justifying this crime. Without his greatness much of what we see today would not exist. Although I do realise that such statements nearly always remain relegated to the realms of stupidity because if not for Newton there might have been a George or Alicia who might have completed what he had done if not having reproduced his exact brilliance. Whatever the case may be, the greatness of Newton was only made possible because of his predecessors. Thus George or Alicia or Newton together with the other great technological magic that we witness today will no longer exist if not for their inspiration and derivation from the work of predecessors. After all, even you and I are today comfortably couched on the broad shoulders of giants.
Of Kimi
24 Mar 09
Epilogue
I together with all of my sane audience find it comical to add an epilogue to such a silly and short piece of writing. However, I am forced to do so because of the risk of future accusation of plagiarism.
Please note that I will hereby acknowledge the work of all authors who have contributed to my upcoming posts. This will include me, Kimi, too; that being the reason why I have signed of as “Of Kimi” at the end of this piece of work. I can only beg for your confidence to trust that such a method will avoid for future confusion. I apologise for any doubt that I may have so caused by quoting works such as “The Anaesthetic of Familiarity”.
Also I will like to especially apologise to the special people who have expected me to write an intellectually engaging artwork as promised for tonight’s selection. Unfortunately the essay “Memoirs from the Otherworld” is yet not complete and it begs more time for attaining the author’s satisfaction. I will greatly appreciate anyone who will comment on any of my articles and reward them; like now: I dedicate this essay to the anonymous person who pointed out that I be using the work of geniuses. Thank you.
Also I will like to especially apologise to the special people who have expected me to write an intellectually engaging artwork as promised for tonight’s selection. Unfortunately the essay “Memoirs from the Otherworld” is yet not complete and it begs more time for attaining the author’s satisfaction. I will greatly appreciate anyone who will comment on any of my articles and reward them; like now: I dedicate this essay to the anonymous person who pointed out that I be using the work of geniuses. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment