On 8/28/07 5:24 PM, "Garth Wood" <garth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Finally, I wasn't aware that I was supposed to refrain from expressing
> my talents, skills and abilities to the fullest I'm able simply because,
> by doing so, someone else might be disadvantaged by it and society might
> end up being a worse place for all. I always thought I was supposed to
> do my best for myself, you do your best for yourself, and society
> progresses (if you believe in society's "telos") in the mix. Why am I
> supposed to do the best for myself? Because I can't know ahead of time
> that my actions might also interfere with someone else's livelihood.
> Really, if I wanted to pursue a course of life that never had any
> possibility of wrecking someone else's, the logical thing to do would be
> to shoot myself. (Substitute "hang," "poison," "jump off a cliff," or
> anything else that you'd prefer.)
>
> I'm not ready to do that. At least, not yet. And whether I like it or
> not, there's always someone who wants to eat my lunch. Thus whether I
> like it or not is irrelevant. I've simply decided that *I'd* rather eat
> my lunch.
>
>
> Garth
>
But, you can't afford lunch if you give your work away. That's the whole
point of what we're trying to say here. No one is going to give you a free
lunch, you have to earn enough money to buy one before you even consider
eating it or letting someone else eat it. I ate lunch at a Subway Restaurant
today. It cost me almost $7. It takes a fair number of iStock sales just to
earn lunch at one of the least expensive restaurants in town! But if I
charge a realistic price for my work, I can eat lunch for a few weeks.
--
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com
http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|