WEEK2 - Forum - I Want to be Original, Like Everyone Else

"Common practice for using copyleft is to codify the copying terms for a work with a license. Any such license typically gives each person possessing a copy of the work the same freedoms as the author, including:

1. the freedom to use and study the work,
2. the freedom to copy and share the work with others,
3. the freedom to change the work,
4. and the freedom to distribute changed and therefore derivative works."

Symbol and quote:
Copyleft, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyleft&oldid=114870476 (last visited March 14, 2007).

Where do I start with my blog on Stepen's fascinating presentation, brimming with facts, anecdotes, dates, humour - and a bit more humour. After an hour plus, I needed a break, but then would have been happy to let my imagination and thoughts drift, sitting 5 floors up, as Stephen drew from his well of wisdom and experience.

In a contemporary world, I feel that value is placed on originality in a controlled environment; new ideas are harnessed for profit of some kind rather than placed in the public domain for others experimentation – refer copyleft/right: open/closed source software (Windows/Linux). One may also argue that oil producers (and others) repress development of original ideas regarding ‘alternative’ energy for the sake of a known source of profit.

Now, the idea of meta-originality got my cogs turning:
I googled and meta-originality popped up in reference to writing, mostly verse, and, interesting to note though not that suprising, the writing fraternity have been busily experimenting with computer generated verse, etc. and the term ‘meta-originality’ you will find in the last paragraph of this page:

Reading Processes: Hartman’s Virtual Muse
by noah @ 12:41 pm: http://grandtextauto.gatech.edu/2005/07/21/reading-processes-hartmans-virtual-muse/
Accessed 12/03/2007

And somewhere, google assures me, on this page (unfortunately I didn’t have my magnifying glass handy or 3 hours to spare to find it - you'll see what I mean if you care to visit):

http://www.ubu.com/contemp/stefans/e-stopft.htm
(last visited March 12, 2007).

The meaning of ‘meta’ is pretty clear:
“From the Hypercomputing Dictionary: A prefix meaning 'one layer of information removed'. If X is some concept then meta-X is "data about or processes operating on X". The dual directionality of meta can be illustrated in the concept of an 'explanation'. If someone says, "what does that mean?" one can offer them either a definition and explanation or an example - either are accepted.”

Meta, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta&oldid=113750112 (last visited March 12, 2007).

From the same page:

“metadata are data about data (who has produced it, when, what format the data are in and so on).”

From the Greek, equivalent to Latin ‘post’ etc. as in post-operative or postproduction. After the fact. But what fact? Where is the difinitive idea? When we add originality is when the trouble starts!

Concluding, is this blog a meta-original piece on Stephen’s presentation? Was Stephen’s presentation meta-original, intererspersed with original (first hand) experiences? But they were recollections of the original experience. Is everything meta-original in as much as they are recounting or elaborating (adding data to) what is already known and has already occurred? The word ‘aboriginal’ means ‘of the original’. What I’d like to know is, what and where is the original?