Indie (Independent) publishing is becoming more popular every day. As someone concerned with the best way to publish my book once it is complete, I’ve read every book, listened to every podcast, watched every video, and read every blog post I could get my paws on within the last few years. Throughout this time I have developed my own take on where I think things are heading for the book publishing industry and why some publishing models will, in the long run, be better for both the author and consumer.

Technology has given authors the means to bypass the traditional route. The Internet is a game changer – and it is an exciting one for writers. Even though the industry is changing, and the stigma of “self” or “indie” publishing is diminishing day by day…there still is a lingering  group of people vying for the traditional route. Holding on dearly to the dream of having their book on a physical bookshelf for a limited time within brick and mortar shops. Shops that are getting scarcer by the day as more and more people buy ereaders and consider the convenience of online shopping.

My “Philosophy of Indie Publishing” blog posts will address various aspects of indie publishing (vs. traditional publishing).

Some questions that may be pondered and addressed are:

• What are some of the pros and cons?
• Why will the consumer be benefitted with Indie?
• What does it mean that the author holds all of the rights to their book?
• Does the author have to do more work because they have to do all of their own marketing?
• How has the Internet changed the way people can bring their book to people?
• What does indie publishing mean for time frames to publish?
• How do we get around the issue of quality control if anyone can publish a poorly written book?
• Who will determine the quality of a book if not some traditional gatekeeper?
• How will indie publishing help with education?
• How does it support freedom of speech?
•  What does it mean that people can display their ideas and concepts with the only gatekeeper being the reader, rather than a small group of people who say “no”?
• Are ebooks the future of reading?
• Why will indie publishing be important for philosophers and the expansion of ideas?
• What are some future possibilities for ereaders?
• What of formatting and cover art?
• How is indie publishing a better model for the environment?

…and a whole lot more.

This is the first of a series of blog posts on this topic that I plan to write.  Each post beginning with the title “The Philosophy of Indie Publishing – X” (X being the specific topic) will address specific questions or points about indie publishing. On the right hand side these posts can be filtered by clicking the “Publishing” category. Stay tuned!

Subscribe to my blog if this is a topic of interest to you.  I also talk about other topics pertaining to philosophy and the nonfiction and fiction books I am currently in the process of writing. I also post new doodles that you can use for free on your own blog or website, and plan on more free content at www.TrickSlattery.com. Here is another doodle I just put up on the site for your use:

moonfairy

Thanks for stopping by. Hope you have a spiffy day!

‘Trick

Visit: www.TrickSlattery.com/freedoodles

Reminder: I will add new doodles to this site as I sketch them up. If you use an image don’t forget to link back to my site. If you want to be kept up to date on any new doodles that I add in which you can use, subscribe to my blog. Also please keep in mind that the doodles I draw specifically for my blog are not to be used unless located at www.trickslattery.com/freedoodles. Of course I’m flexible on this. Just ask. Please link back.

Also, don’t forget to join my emailing list.  Every now and again I will send you an email with information about content on my site, etc. Emails will be sent infrequently so you will not be spammed. Later on I plan on making a section of my site with different content only for those that are on my email list as well (password will be sent to those on mailing list). I have some fun (and free) content in mind for the future that you will not wanna miss.

If everyone on the planet placed all of their wealth (assets, etc)  into one large bucket, and that wealth was distributed evenly to each person, there would not be a single person in poverty. No one would be starving. No one would have insufficient shelter or clothing. No one would be missing out on the basic necessities of life.

Why is that? Because a small percentage of the population owns the largest percentage of wealth.

There are around 7 billion people in the world, and about 1/5th of 1% of those people are millionaires. According to a report by CreditSuisse , Millionaires and Billionaires controlled 39% of all global wealth in 2011. Think about what it means that 39% of all wealth is distributed within 1/5th of 1% (or 0.2%) of the entire population of the world.

To see this lets minimize our numbers down to 500 people and the distribution of $100. 1 person out of the 500 people would have $39 of that $100 pot. If we were to split the rest up evenly between everyone else, that is 12 cents per person. 1 person with $39, everyone else with 12 cents. But the rest is not distributed evenly either.

The richestest 1% (which includes those millionares) that are valued over 500,000 per adult own well over 40%, and the richestest 2% own over half.

In other words, in our $100 scenerio, 2% (10 people) of the 500 people would own more than $50 of the $100, leaving the other $50 to be split between 490 people. And  that other $50 is not distributed evenly either!

One can begin to see how 2% of the world could make a drastic change in the world – a 50% change, and how, if wealth was distributed evenly, poverty would not exist.

Most people don’t bother to think about these things. They just go about their consumerist and capitalistic  lives without giving it a thought. Or if they do give it a thought they conjur up some sort of blameworthiness to the unwealthy and deservingness to the wealthy. Of course 2% of the population is 50% more deserving than the other 98%…right? And 0.2% is 39% more deserving that the other 99.8%…right?

Of course not. If you have been following my blog at all you would know I am writing a book about the lack of  free will. In it I expose these ideas of blameworthiness and being more deserving as inherently flawed. Flaws caused by a “free will” psychology.

Do I advocate complete equalization of wealth? No -  not until far in the future with (hopefully) a complete mindset change of the majority of the population. Not until such “free will” psychology gets weeded out. Of course I go into this in detail within the current book I am writing. I readily admit the need for personal incentive to those ego driven in the meantime.

Do I advocate some sort of cap on the extreme side of wealth?

Take a guess.

Visit: www.TrickSlattery.com/freedoodles

Reminder: I will add new doodles to this site as I sketch them up. If you use an image don’t forget to link back to my site. If you want to be kept up to date on any new doodles that I add in which you can use, subscribe to my blog. Also please keep in mind that the doodles I draw specifically for my blog are not to be used. Only use images located at www.trickslattery.com/freedoodles w/ link back. Of course I’m flexible on this. Just ask.

Also, today I added an emailing list to my website. Put your email in it and every now and again I will send you an email with information about content on my site, etc. Emails will be sent infrequently so you will not be spammed. Later on I plan on making a section of my site with different content only for those that are on my email list as well.

In this post I want to briefly talk about why the consequences of our actions should be the primary focus of any ethical system. Ethics that focus on the consequence are called… take a guess… you guessed it… consequentialist ethics. The consequence is the output of the action. In other words, what will happen if you do something. It is this that needs to be the focus.

Some would think this obvious, but there are different types of ethics with different focus’s. Some are “rule based” ethics (called deontological ethics), in which rules or “duties” are the focus, regardless of the consequence. Some are virtue based ethics, where as the character of the person is the focus (and what an action means for that character), regardless of the consequence. These ethical systems, for the most part,  place the consequence as secondary.

I am certainly not suggesting virtue is unimportant, or that rules and duties should not be part of an ethical system. I am saying that those should always be contingent on the potential consequence of the action. On our predictive ability and output of what may or will happen later given a certain action.

I would argue that rules or duties make no rational sense outside of what they lead to. Outside of the consequence. One might say that it is always unethical to lie. That may be their rule: One ought not lie. And in general, this may be a good rule. What makes it a good rule is the consequence. A world of constant liars is a world where trust is impossible. But when something happens where the consequence outweighs the rule, such as a Nazi asking a person if another person is hidden and if so where, certainly it is not the ethical thing to tell the truth.

The consequence should always trump any rule based system. Likewise with virtue, it may be a virtue to tell the truth, but the consequence should always trump such “virtue”.

This simplistic example makes the point. The end output is more important than if someone is “virtuous” or if someone  holds a rule or duty. Rules, duties, and virtue should point to action that lead to the best consequence. This is by no means an elaborate argument for consequentialism and my second book will go into great detail about this. This is just a lil’ something to get a person thinking about where their own ethics are focused.

The question to ask someone that gives you a moral or ethical rule is, why is such rule ethically important? Or why is an action virtuous?  I bet they will have a hard time justifying it without pointing to an actual consequence.

Visit: www.TrickSlattery.com/freedoodles

Reminder: I will add new doodles to this site as I sketch them up. If you want to be kept up to date on any new doodles that I add in which you can use, subscribe to my blog. Also please keep in mind that the doodles I draw specifically for my blog are not to be used. Only use images located at www.trickslattery.com/freedoodles and link back.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving. 

BOO! Next week is Halloween!!

I added six new doodles (5 of the ‘Halloween’ type) that you can use for free on your own website. Don’t forget to link back to my website if you use.

Visit: www.TrickSlattery.com/freedoodles

These are five creepy or weird doodles you can use for Halloween: creepy window alien, hooded guy, pumpkin head, wolf and unlucky little guy, and weird crustacean guy. Use them to advertise your party, haunted house, or scary blog post.

Also a not-so-halloweenie doodle: trees and a bird

Reminder: I will add new doodles to this site as I sketch them up. If you want to be kept up to date on any new doodles that I add in which you can use, subscribe to my blog.

Also please keep in mind that the doodles I draw specifically for my blog are not to be used. Only use images located at www.trickslattery.com/freedoodles.

Have a Spoooooky week,

‘Trick Slattery

Without getting into too much depth as to why such protests are important, I want to focus on something a little more at base. Something that should be at the heart of such protests but that is hardly ever thought about. The understanding of the lack of free will.

There seems to be this belief by some who are against the protests that: if there is inequality, it is because those that do not have are to blame and those that do have are more deserving.

I explain in detail within the book I am writing that: without free will, these notions of “blameworthiness” and “more deserving-ness” need to be abandoned. People are at the position they are in life due to events that were and are entirely out of their control.

This is one reason (of many) why the topic of free will is so important and why the belief in free will is not a benign belief. The belief in free will creates this allowance of inequality. It allows people to blame others for their lack of wealth and to condone excess wealth of others who are deemed deserving of such wealth.

Understanding that free will cannot (and hence does not) exist is the great equalizer. It strip away the ego that creates such an imbalance in wealth and quality of life. It is a base subject that is given little consideration.

And without free will, the implications are gigantic.

Regardless, these ‘Occupy” protests are not asking for complete equality nor is the world ready to accept that. Most people still think free will exists. The protesters are only asking that we curve the extreme side of the inequalities. These inequalities that make the game so ridiculously unfair that only a teenie tiny percentage of the population can play.

Given that free will does not exist (which is the point of the book I am writing), and that we should be asking for much more in regards to equality, I don’t think reducing the extreme unfairness is too much to ask at all. Do you?

I show that thoughts are events, and that there are only two possibilities for events. I show why these possibilities are entirely incompatible with free will.

I also explain why compatibilist notions of free will, which basically is a redifining of the term “ free will” in such a way that it fits in with one of these possibilities, misses the point entirely. That these notions of free will are not helpful in any way, and that they just allow people to contrive their own notion of free will that does not relate to the compatibilists notion.

In other words, the book I am writing is not one of those books that do not take a side. It is not one that suggests that there is any possibility what-so-ever that we can or do have free will. It is a firm stance on one side of a controversal issue.

But just because the book only takes one side does not mean it is not for everyone. The book is for both people that already understand that free will is impossible as well as people that hold a belief in free will.

For those that already disbelieve in free will, the arguments will strengthen their conviction or give them some new ways to think about the topic.

For those that believe in free will, the book is a challenge. It is a challenge for them to see if, after reading the book, their belief in free will still holds water. Maybe they will be able to. Maybe they have a good argument I have missed. I doubt it, but who knows? So I throw the challenge out to them.  Prove me wrong. And who isn’t up for a challenge?

If they fail the challenge, which I think they will, it is my hope that the book changes minds. That people begin to understand this important fact about reality. The book goes into depth of why this is so important. Hence the second part of the title “… for the Betterment of Humankind”.

I invite people with dissenting  points of view to read my book once it is out.

And if you are one of those with a dissenting point of view, do me a favor. After you read the book:

Send me an email.
In it explain how “free will” really is logically coherent.

I betcha can’t.

Visit: www.TrickSlattery.com/freedoodles

These are four new ones: beetree elf, scaredybot, oddfish, furryglider

Reminder: I will add new doodles to this site as I sketch them up. If you want to be kept up to date on any new doodles that I add in which you can use, subscribe to my blog.

Also please keep in mind that the doodles I draw specifically for my blog are not to be used. Only use images located at www.trickslattery.com/freedoodles.

Hope you enjoy,

‘Trick Slattery