Marte Cliff writes:

Wow… There’s a problem I didn’t even know existed! My only problem is thinking of something new to say, and then finding time to say it.

I write little notes to myself when an idea hits me while I’m cooking dinner or even writing something for someone else. Then the trouble is… where did I put that note!

Sorry you’re so cold. I think we’re at about 12 above… and its snowing.

[Reply]

Denice writes:

It’s natural to focus on the one bad comment even when you’ve written over 100 articles (I finished my 100th article last Jan. 2007.) I wonder why we do that, but I think it’s because we care and want to make a difference in the world. We want to help everybody. And we think that what we write is important. What I thought the most interesting from writing all those articles is what I felt was important was different (obviously) from what others feel is important. I now will take my top 25 articles, flesh them out and post them as web pages on my site after I seek out the answers to the questions that still have not been answered. I’m so glad I took Chris’s advice and did the whole 100!

[Reply]

David Darrah writes:

I have learned in life many times I can’t get my way, or it didn’t go the way I thought it would, or like the people who say they believe in the written word don’t see it like I do, or you just don’t like me. I think I seen it all. Brother David

[Reply]

Ed Howes writes:

Dr. Chris,

This is as psychologically heavy as anything I can remember coming from you. Won’t you tell us how you reached the conclusion attachment was a major problem of low volume writers?

I have read the Seven Spiritual Laws of Success by Deepak Chopra many times over and I recommend it to everyone in the world who can find the book in their language. One of the seven laws is the Law of Detachment. Although you have applied it to writing in this post, it is truly a powerful law of personal liberat4999ion, without which the word freedom is merely a slogan.

[Reply]

Ed Howes writes:

Hey can you guess what my last security code was?

[Reply]

Nick Radford writes:

Chris,

Thank you for these thoughts.

Articles can have a life of their own. I should let them come out more freely. I will try…

Nick

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Ed,

I dunno… was your last security code, “liberat4999ion”?

Not all low volume writers have emotional attachement issues… In fact, one could even argue that it would be hard to talk about low volume authors because some authors have written a high volume of articles but just didn’t submit them yet.

Most of the references that brought me to this emotional attachement distintion came from some private coaching sessions I’ve had with authors.

I haven’t read Deepak’s book for several years now, but I do recall reading it once.

It’s interesting that when we release our need for an end outcome to occur [that attachement issue], we free up our mind/spirit to allow ourselves to attract whatever we really wanted to have happen and with less ‘striving’ or personal resistence.

[Reply]

Tammie Allen writes:

Unfortunately, I understand only too well what you mean Chris. I cannot write without including small pieces of myself and I do believe this makes me a better writer, but…..

There is always a but. Instead of articles being just facts and information that I want to share with others, they become (pardon the ego), almost works of art. They must be slaved over, rewritten again and again. Until finally I am satisfied that the right words have been found, the right image has been portrayed, the correct message will be shared.

If you got exhausted just reading that last paragraph, you are probably catching on. It would be much easier and far less time consuming to just sit down and type out a few paragraphs of information. Maybe one day I might actually figure out how to do that LOL.

[Reply]

Earlyn Shuffler writes:

Hi Chris,

I really appreciate you sharing your experience. It give us a new perspective and challenges us to contribute more freely.
I have only started submitting articles recently but I did have concerns about being perfect and spent a lot of time on a few articles before publishing them.
I will try writing with more freedom and definitely increase my submissions.

[Reply]

Edward Weiss writes:

Process over product always works for me – in writing articles and in music as well. And ironically, I find my “best” material always comes when I’m not thinking about writing a good article.

I think if I worried about what everyone thought of what I had to say, I probably never would have posted an article in the first place.

My advice to newbie article marketers is to let go of the need to control the outcome and focus on and enjoy the process of writing. This is what has worked best for me. And I’ve written 250 articles so far!

[Reply]

Sumi Krishnan writes:

I will put my comment in this way…

* What would happen if I became emotionally detached from my articles?

I will be no longer able to write in future

* Would I write more articles and worry less?

It is an inevitability that makes me write. A condition that no way left other than writing to get away from particular state of mind.

* Would I have less anger, disappointment or rage and could I use this newly found time to be more productive and happy?

I don think writing is posible when we are away from these swings of emotions..

* If I was able to detach myself from how difficult it is to produce 10x the number of articles I’ve already produced, would I be able to produce more quality original articles?

The question, i think is already answered.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

I believe there are times to be detached and times to be attached emotionally. If you are in a creative zone you should detach from the rest of the world and create. If you are in a systematic list making frame of mind, then write bullet type, how to, industry specific stuff.

Look here is the deal Paton Manning was in the Zone. The guy we use to call Prince was in the Zone in the half time show. A couple of the commentators were detached and gave us some excellent commentary, the referees were totally detacted, it was not about opinion, only about the plays as they saw them. There is a time for both detachment and attachment.

Luckily you can you both to write articles. If you are in the emotional attachment zone, CREATE like never before, give the world your masterpieces. But Chris is correct, if you want to write more articles you will also need to work in that detach zone, nuetral zone and outside the emotional fog. Consider these thoughts, they are worthy of your time to increase your article output. But no matter what zone you are in proof read when you are completed prior to posting.

[Reply]

Colin "Beer Belly" McDougall writes:

Chris’ brain is not frozen here!

What he says is sooo true. I have personally let go of being “personally attached” to my articles or any other aspects of my business.

Letting go of the personal stuff allows you to become open to constructive critisicm which then leads to improvement.

I have been through it all both with my affiliate sites and ebook. I took things too personally in the beginning and that resulted in some major setbacks.

Letting go of the emotions and striving forward based upon feedback has been the key to my recent successes

[Reply]

joychandra writes:

Hi Chris, I am new in writing article can you share me initially.

[Reply]

Dan Goodwin writes:

Hi Chris,

Really interesting topic, I can definitely relate to this.

I see my articles now as little missionaries or evangelists going out into the world to “spread the good word” about what I can offer people. Once they’re submitted, they’re gone and i can let them go and do what they need to do.

This detachment definitely helps me be more productive and write articles more quickly. Now I look back at articles from a couple of weeks or months back and am often surprised by the (good) quality of writing I can produce without spending hours perfecting each word like I have done in the past.

Obviously it gets easier the more you write, and I’d encourage people to write in batches or sets too, as many others have recommended, as this gives more detachment and almost a “production line” kind of mentality to the process, while still knowing that each article is written with care and passion.

Dan Goodwin

[Reply]

Steve Hill writes:

A builder does not become attached to a house, people need to write in the hope that other people will want to include the article in their ezine or website.

The article is for them not for you.

It is like when you sell a house, you decorate it for what the average person will like, not what you like.

Write the article and then let it go on its merry journey.

[Reply]

Dina at Wordfeeder.com writes:

I see the “emotional attachment” thing potentially happening on two levels.

One, for new authors who may feel vulnerable about publishing their work on the web or “too tender” when it comes to taking criticism. Freedom from that comes with experience.

Two, when you write about a subject that is dear to you, a sore spot, or whatever, and “little pieces of your heart” spill off the page.

Neither of these is a desirable condition, particularly when your article ends up in a context where you didn’t really expect it to land (new website, stranger’s website, even a junky website –yes, it happens to all of us).

I have written emotion-based articles in the past, and I end up seeing them floating around the web, and despising them. I think they look foolish.

So I would have to agree that being emotionally attached from your article content, and from article writing itself, is indeed, the ideal to work toward.

[Reply]

Phillip Davis writes:

Hey Chris-

I love the zen of your subjects.

Complete detachment would require a very new “egoless” person, since any thought/idea/concept immediately establishes a positionality on the subject matter. And any fixed position is up for challenge or debate. I have written a number of articles with advice that I have since not followed myself. So if we start getting defensive about being “right” or corret or being experts, then yes, our emotional attachment to our ideas and opinions can become debilitating. If we see them as what is coming from us at this moment in time, and not the final authoratative answer on the subject, then we are free to allow more of that universal life juice to flow through us and into the lives of others.

[Reply]

Rien Vidad writes:

Hi Chris,

Being a newbie to article writing, I do feel that attachment to an article. Always worrying about what people will think of me as a person after they read it.

When I have written something that does not get read as much as I would like, I start to let the “Mr. Yeah But” voice get to talking. The voice that says your’e not as good a writer as you think.

Reading posts like this and other writer’s experience energizes me and shows me that I am not alone in my thinking. That I can produce good content. Thanks for the great post

[Reply]

Rich Michaels writes:

I thought putting a little emotion in articles, helped to let your readers get to know you better, and when they know you they build a trust with you.

[Reply]

David Phillips writes:

This is a very interesting and thought-provoking article. I believe it is important to write with gusto and passion
for your subject, and if you can also achieve the detachment and objectivity to which Chris refers, then I think that would be the perfect outcome.

[Reply]

Pamela Beers writes:

Write like there is no tomorrow. When tomorrow comes, forget about what you wrote yesterday and move on.

It’s 20 degrees below zero with the wind chill! I went for a short walk today and my face felt like it was going to fall off! Br-r-r-r

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

If you stand for Nothing, you fall for anything. If you have Passion, use it. If you do not, you are a Sheeple, so I do not wish to converse with you or read your article. I am not interested in someone with no energy, intelligence or brain power, running around pretending to be like everyone else. Either you are turned on, or you are turned off. Which is it.

Show me what you got. If you ain’t got nothing, then as I use to say in my Track Star days, “TRACK” meaning get out of the way, speed up or get off the track. There is a time for Passionate Writing. Then there is a time when you want to make sure you do not offend any of the little persnickety whiners, who so much want you to be like them and everyone else because you make them look silly, weak, incompetent, undedicated and so far in the back of the pack, they cannot even figure out what happen or watch you winning the race.

Passion rocks, attachment has its place. Detachment is sometimes necessary and favored. It is not an either or answer. Do both, use one or the other or both when it suits you. Too much talk.

[Reply]

Marte Cliff writes:

Wow! You did a great job at stirring up a controversy!

Somehow, in reading these posts, I sense that not everyone understands the concept of “emotional detachment.”

In my view, your post is along the same lines as asking the universe for what you want, and then getting out of the way. (as in The Secret)

That may be a little bit too “New Age” for some.

Keep on keepin’ on Chris… I’m on your page and I’m sure I’m not alone!

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Well in the “New Age” motif you need to fully understand what we are taking about here; Are you a robot of the Universe or are you the individual guiding it. Do you believe you have no say in the matter? Then kill yourself and go be one with it and allow the rest of us to enjoy the experience.

Being one with everything is a given, following anything or any potential whisper you thought you heard is throwing away the value of the life experience. Living like a Borg, unattached to anything, is not living, not really. A true creative person can staddle the attachment/detachment, as needed.

It is not one or the other, now then do both, I do. Some articles have emotional attachment, many do not. Nevertheless by doing both you have more opportunites and can write more articles. Why is this so hard for people to get, it is so simple. DO BOTH> Okay then, I have 10,500 articles online, I do both.

How many articles do you have? How many did you write today. Who has the most traffic, stats, pickups, etc. Okay so this is my evidence more my case, DO BOTH, show me yours for doing either one or the other? I have won this debate, so you can go on in the “Agony of Defeat Mode” all you want. Think people, why would you not do both?

So worried someone might worry about your opinion? Why are you running for office or something? Don’t worry they will make something up even if you are 100% politically correct and run around like a snake hiding under rocks.

[Reply]

Dina at Wordfeeder.com writes:

One of the BIGGEST benefits of being emotionally detached from what you’re writing:

It allows you to express yourself without crushing other people like bugs in the process.

It allows for a peaceful exchange of ideas, without defensive egos clouding the judgement.

It does not position you as the ANTAGONIST because there is no self-created drama.

It allows for communication that does not put others on the defensive because it doesn’t “feel” like an attack.

It means feeling REASONABLE as you express yourself, and REASONABLE toward those who react to whatever you have expressed, whether the reaction is positive or negative.

It’s the difference between the psychological Child and Adult that lives inside of you, getting behind your strongest opinions. I mean really – which of those two do you want representing you, professionally and as a testament to your expertise?

Me, I’ll take the Reasoning Adult if I can.

:)

[Reply]

Kristin Kopp writes:

You guys are hilarious!

Chris, as a fellow freezing Wisconsinite, I thank you for heating up the airwaves!

You say, “Being detached from your articles…you will find yourself faced with multiplicities of new found possibilities that didn’t seem to exist before.”

Detachment allows the quantum manifestation process to create synchronicity, coincidence and good luck in your world.

Detachment has been praised as a path to spiritual rewards throughout the ages and recently quantum physics gives us evidence that trusting the process rather than forcing the Newtonian universe to conform to a preconcieved ideal will gain us bigger, better and unexpected rewards.

Imagine the Possibilities!
Kristin Kopp

[Reply]

Edward Weiss writes:

Dina,

I love the way you write! You have a very clear way of speaking that translates superbly in writing. Have you written or do you play to write a book?

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Agreed, Dina is an excellent writer. I am very fortunate to have had the time to read most of her articles, one can certainly learn a lot from her. You know I find her articles very personality driven and fun. So, it is amazing she is able to be detached from the article and so attached to the reader.

Yet, there is nothing wrong with shaking a human’s belief system to its core. If your articles can do that you make people think, you show them their mirror and thus you wake them up. Since most of the population acts like children, you are going to have to careful to remain at their level to deal with them.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Kristen, sounds great and when you are done crossing the galaxy like a shooting star then perhaps you might come back to Earth and live in the real world in time to utilize all this wonderfulness you have achieved.

You know as nice as all this sounds you do not have to clear your plate to will events to occur or expect the hollistic universe to perform. How ever it all works, it works either way. It simply is. All frequency and vibrational energy intersect, you do not have to detach to plug in.

It is not Newonian Universe VS Eastern Culture. It is both. If you are really one with all, then show me your results in the here and now and also the spiritualness side simultaneously. And you can detach yourself from the here and now and collect enlightenment from the universe or collective minds if you wish, but then who is writing your article then? You or Us? If you are not writing it, then leave your name and link off of it, because that is plagiarism. HA! Debate it.

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

The real challenge is that some of the new age folks have mastered becoming the “OBSERVER” that they have failed to do the “ACTION” required to MANIFEST that which they INTEND to ATTRACT for their lives.

I’ve spent a few weeks up in Northern California to know that it’s good to study ‘woo woo’, and it’s good to return to the real world to get back into MASSIVE ACTION.

Both have value, but action is always required to attract physical results.

[Reply]

Dina at Wordfeeder.com writes:

Edward and Lance:

Thank you!

:)

[Reply]

Kristin Kopp writes:

Hey Lance,

I don’t know who said “you have to detach to plug in.” Not me! I agree with you that it is not the Newtonian Universe vs. Eastern Culture. It’s not even Newtonian vs. quantum or mind power vs. action.

Of course, that viewpoint may just be from the perspective of an Inclusionist.

Thanks. I feel an article coming on.

Kristin

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Kristin, You are indeed a good sport and I like your website. Well you can rest assured that I posted 5 articles on this subject tonight. I thank you too for your input in helping me with them.

Indeed, I like to rile everyone up once in a while to get to the juicy debate and into the minds of those who are not afraid to ponder the topic. Good for you! Excellent. Well, back to my writing, lets see what else we can come up with to really make this topic go and then we can watch the flickering flame from outside the cave?

Still, I bet all the masses are still wondering what on Earth or in the Universe we are talking about? Enslaved in their own minds.Thanks again, your friend Lance.

[Reply]

joychandra writes:

Writing an article needs emotion to express what he/she thought would react the reader. So i agree that emotional writing will be a good article in all the time.

[Reply]

Kristin Kopp writes:

I’ll bring the marshmallows.

[Reply]

Dan Goodwin writes:

This has turned into a facinating discussion!

I think some of us have maybe slightly missed Chris’s original point.

Of course it’s important if we’re writing for our business or pleasure that we write in a passionate and expressionate way.

Otherwise it wouldn’t be interesting to readers, and it wouldn’t be interesting or enjoyable for us to write. And writing should be fun after all shouldn’t it?

Chris was talking about detaching from the outcome of sending the article out into the big wide world (web), and he posed questions about if we were able to detach from outcomes, would it enable us to be more prolific, less suscebtible to criticism and so on, which I think it would.

So maybe the ideal balance is to write wonderfully passionate articles and let the quality and natural enthusiasm contained in their words go out and do the work for us, while we get on with writing our next great article…

[Reply]

Allen Taylor writes:

I believe emotional detachment comes from volume. The more you write the more you realize the importance of writing in the first place is the need to communicate and be understood rather than the need to be heard. When you write to communicate you take the time to make sure that what you communicate will be received the way you intend it to. To do that effectively, you have to detach. It’s a necessity.

That’s not to say that you can’t write an emotionally charged or passionate piece of work. You can. But you have to do it intentionally and to do it intentionally you have to step back and ask yourself a few questions:

1) Why does this need to be emotional?
2) Why does this need to express that particular emotion?
3) How can I best convey that emotion without losing control?

Emotion in writing comes primarily from two things:

1) Word choice
2) Tone

There has to be a balance between the two and only detachment can bring that balance. New writers tend to get wrapped up in the need to be heard rather than the art of communicating. Then, when they’ve convinced themselves that they’ve said what they wanted to be heard, there is nothing left to write.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

With all due respect I say under my breath, BULL. But in public here I was say. Well that certainly is a vary vaild and unique perspective and POV?

If you have something to say, do not beat around the bush, say it! If your points are not important say it with a blah attitude and no one will care, what you said. They really don’t care either way it seems.

[Reply]

Dina at Wordfeeder.com writes:

Ohh, Allen Taylor, what a beautiful post! Yes, I do agree with what you said. I’m nodding along to the point that my head may pop off my neck.

Except for one thing. I think that “word choice” and “tone” are one and the same.

Maybe you mean tone (word choice) and rhythm (pacing)?

Although, in general, I myself view logic and emotion as the two key ingredients to good writing.

[Reply]

Allen Taylor writes:

Thank you, Dina. I did mean word choice, as in do you use “love” or “amore.” Both mean the same thing but convey a different, yes, tone. I can see where you might say tone and WC are the same. WC does convey a tone but I’d say tone is also determined by other things as well, including pacing, or rhythm and WC also tells us things about the character/narrator that tone may not, such as level of education, cultural background and, in some cases, even gender. I guess we could add rhythm as a third component. All good writing hits those three components on the head.

I agree with your ingredients although I would use passion instead of emotion because if you write legal briefs you probably don’t want any emotion, but you don’t passion – at least passion for the law and proper judgment. If you read scientific journals you’ll find some very dry writing but you can also see writing written by people who have a passion for the subject.

[Reply]

Susan Scharfman writes:

Lance: What is Sheeple?

I’ve just come out of 4 days of hell in a hospital that gave me every test imaginable and came up with a “viral infection” as diagnosis. My head is swimming in meds, so it’s hard to think much less write.

Though I try not to be in love with my words, it is impossible for me to be detached from the theme of what I am writing while I am writing; it would be passionless. Without fire in the belly the story is flat, dull, boring. After the story is published, I forgetaboutit; otherwise I’d be unable to write anything else. But to become zen-detached from anything takes years of intensive practice. Depending on the ego, could take a lifetime.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Zen like detachment is simple, anyone can do it. Everyone makes such a big deal about it? It should come natural, not sure what the hang up for everyone is. I think it is because everyone tells themselves it is so hard to achieve, they believe that and thus it takes them years, lifetime or never.

There is nothing wrong with ego, as long is you are honest with your own mirror. The detachment zen issues are used incorrectly by most who think they are discovering something? Yet, they just run around acting silly, they are not enlightened in the least, you can tell by their actions.

I find many folks get so involved that they cannot come back to reality when it is necessary to pay attention and rock and roll in this world. Must be the God gene, substituting the Universe both big and small, which although is more appropriate, there are more pretenders of Zen then people in many third world nations.

[Reply]

Allen Taylor writes:

After you’ve had so many articles published each one becomes a lot less important to you emotionally. If I’d only written two articles in my life then each one would be a prized jewel. But since I’ve written thousands and have bylines in print and online, after awhile they become just another byline. I’ve got articles I can’t even remember writing. How attached can I be to those?

That’s not to say I don’t have my favorites. I’ve written things 20 years ago that I can still remember and recite. But I’ve also written things just a few weeks ago that I can’t even remember two lines from and don’t care to revisit. To me they’re just articles. Some are better than others and some make more of an impact – even to me – than the rest, but each time I write one I go through my “routine” and put out another one.

I no longer sweat, though I slave.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Emotion is an interesting human trait. But emotion comes from within. Where does that article come from? If your article is external, then is it really yours? Did you copy it, re-write it, is it really someone else’s idea? Or is it yours?

If it is your, you need to claim it, put your name on it and attach to it. If you are detached from your article do not put your name on it, unless you are dysfuncationally detached from your name, body, work, family and life. Then it might all match. And you can make a website called; “I am emotionally detached.com” and here are my articles. I do not care if you read them, comment or click out, because I am detached and so what?

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

All,

I don’t want this blog be used to ‘out’ specific content thieves.

If you have a problem with a thief, report them, flag the site as spam or suspect, or email/call the web hosting provider if you can’t get the thief to make it right.

Blogspot can be frustrating, especially when the splogger disables the java FLAG this site as spam… but there are ways to re-enable your ability to flag the site… and unfortunately, the ways I used to know to re-enable the flag is not working today. I will research this and get back to everyone with a way to re-enable the flag so you can alert Blogspot’s abuse team when they post ripped content.

What the FLAG AS OBJECTIONABLE is about:
http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=42517

An older blog entry on Splogs, but the javascript thing no longer works:
http://blog.EzineArticles.com/2005/11/splog-reporting.html

I’ll get back to everyone on this as soon as I have an answer.

Filling out DMCA complaints all day is not fun ( http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html ), so let’s find a way to re-enable the flag option.

And Allen is right. These sploggers are not getting rich off your content. Their short life is very short.

[Reply]

Ed Howes writes:

And the up side is: Western Civilization in general and Anglo Saxon Empire in particular have been built upon theft of labor and resources from others. Theft is foundational to all member state governments. This raises the question of where we might be today if this was not so. I have tried to imagine if empire could be built with love and compassion and usually draw a blank. Where do we find a model? Could we have built secular communities on the Amish model which would allow the compassionate use of technology?

If one steals my work and applies it to a positive social benefit successfully, should I resent their method or applaud the result? All success literature I am familiar with puts the focus on results. If results matter most, the widespread distribution of good ideas are more important than who gets credit.

The world was listening to radio, while Nikola Tesla was in court proving priority over Marconi for its invention and the text books still probably credit Marconi. On the other hand, the marketplace, chose Tesla’s use of alternating current over Edison’s direct, for a far more efficient grid system, for better or worse, in hindsight. How much great technology has never been developed for fear of theft, which is common enough to legitimize the fear?

I decided nearly 30 years ago if theft was going to be a condition of employment, I would be unemployed in the conventional sense. What is the social cost of my decision?

[Reply]

Allen Taylor writes:

Hmmm … interesting thoughts Ed,

I agree with that second sentence of yours. It’s straight out of intellect of Frederic Bastiat, author of “The Law.”

To answer your question about Empire … love and compassion are antithetical concepts to Empire. An empire, by definition, must be built by force and threat of force. There is no such thing s a benevolent dictator.

On positive social benefits, there is no such thing where theft is concerned. State-sponsored theft has always led to negative social benefits (again, straight from Bastiat). Regarding the next statement:

“If results matter most, the widespread distribution of good ideas are more important than who gets credit.”

I think Benjamin Franklin would have agreed with that. America’s first millionaire was one of the country’s most prolific inventors yet he never sought a patent for any of his work. People who wear bifocals have him to thank. If you still cook on a wood stove, or have ever cooked on a wood stove, you have Franklin to thank.

Interesting you mentioned Marconi. His ideas led to the invention of television, though who should be given credit for tapping into moving images is still a topic of debate. Most experts agree a man named Farnsworth was the first to conceive of such an instrument but he was not the first to receive a patent, therefore he is typically not credited. I believe the argument is really a battle of corporate wills: Westinghouse vs. RCA.

Some philosophers say that idea fall on different people in different places and the one who is first to produce positive results is the one who typically receives the credit. Some people do nothing with their ideas whereas others pursue them aggressively and take the glory. If there is social benefit, should we honor the inventor? I think so. I believe it is simply stating an origin for an idea we agree is valuable. Why shouldn’t we give credit where credit is due? It isn’t always the one who gets to the patent office first.

[Reply]

David Phillips writes:

Ed Howes writes: “And the up side is: Western Civilization in general and Anglo Saxon Empire in particular have been built upon theft of labor and resources from others. Theft is foundational to all member state governments. This raises the question of where we might be today if this was not so.”

There is a problem with this loaded word, “theft”.

The corollary of your arguement is that the free market is fundamentally immoral, whereas we all know this is not the case.

Basic economics is amoral, though we can ameliorate the more severe impacts of laissez faire capitalism with laws which protect workers and the environment.

[Reply]

Ed Howes writes:

David,

Please show me a free market economy, that I might study it.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Ed,

There is no such thing as a Free Market Economy, Adam Smith was right, the critique of Karl Marx is note worthy but too extreme. Ayn Rand makes a good point for it and so does Allen Greenspan, Thomas Volker and did Milton Friedman himself.

We cannot study Free Markets in reality, only in theory. Even micro-economies and closed systems, such as an Island Tribe, will have good ole’ boy networks, it is the nature of human behavior, chimpanzees and the social tendencies of upright walking primate Carbon Based Bipeds.

[Reply]

Allen Taylor writes:

Good one, Ed.

Ayn Rand said capitalism is the unknown ideal. The fountainhead of all human progress is in the hands of those who create and innovate. Property rights – including intellectual property – are the foundation of human freedom. When a culture loses respect for property rights then free markets are not possible. Economies, like political systems, are cyclical and move through periods of greater and lesser freedom over time. The true champion of free markets was Ludwig von Mises.

[Reply]

Ed Howes writes:

Thank You Lance!

You have saved me endless hours of research. :-)

[Reply]

Ed Howes writes:

Thanks Allen!

For your corroborative support. I suspected such was the case but David’s comment had me thinking I had missed something very important. A model for just economics.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

I realize Ed’s comments were rhetorical of course, just having fun here. A thought on the subject;

Allegory of a Beach Ball; Thought on Monetary Flows, Trade, Currency and International Markets;

http://ezinearticles.com/?id=23113

[Reply]

Allen Taylor writes:

Good article, Lance. What’s your take on John Nash’s Equilibrium Theory?

[Reply]

Ed Howes writes:

Lance,

Thanks for the allegory link. I enjoyed it and was considering the bully about a paragraph before you introduced it.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Allen, with regards to Nash Couernot equilibrium Theory; I think NASCAR is an interesting game. All the cars have basically the same HP, same tires, same fuel, same strategy on the same track for the same amount of time. The race has many more than two-cars and teams in it. Does any one have an advantage?

And like in all games, even as Allen Turing discusses with Tic-Tac-Toe with a human playing a computer, the human will always either make a mistake or create change.

To that point, an issue of ‚¬“level playing fields‚¬ in regulatory bureaucracy is anything but, they create the un-leveled playing fields call it level and we all know the Rule Breaker/Rule Maker syndrome, long before the Motley Fools came onto the scene to explain what should be obvious.

John Nash and his beautiful mind are of interest in the theory of games and worthy to consider. Personally, I believe there are new undiscovered moves if you study the game and thus I do enjoy his theory in this realm, although would submit to you that the static game exists rarely and such simple games are not those chosen by the most competitive men, as Vince Lombardi agrees.

I think am therefore I think; John Nash has a point, but it is pointless to ignore the only content that is change or someone once said who actually modified the original quote from Hubbard Winslow.

[Reply]

Anne Deidre Smith writes:

I absolutely love the idea of emotionally detaching from your articles. In releasing to the universe, we are free to write more, with flow and ease. Thanks for this.

[Reply]

Maree Harris writes:

Dear Chris,
I am surprised at the response to this article, especially from those who don’t see it as an issue. It is just so much me, but I’d never named it “emotional attachment”. My writing becomes inseparable from me. Every word has to align with who I am and what I believe. That’s why it took me 10 years to write my PhD, and while everyone said it was beautifully crafted writing, I have not yet published it anyway. So your article was both inspirational and motivating for me. I need to take on board what you are saying here. I want to continue writing because I want to market my intellectual property. I won’t be able to do that unless I detach from it somewhat and let it have a life of its own.

[Reply]

Lance Winslow writes:

Good points indeed.

[Reply]

Christopher M. Knight writes:

Maree,

There is nothing wrong at all with being emotionally attached to your writing. :-)

This whole thread could be summed up as:

“Write and submit/publish” instead of “write and write and write and write with hopes that it’ll be perfect enough.”

Too many authors never fully share of their expertise because they are too worried about being perfect and many PhD types are worried about qualifying everything (not always needed) or going too deep/comprehensive for this type of communication.

[Reply]

Allen Taylor writes:

Well said, Chris.

[Reply]

Maree Harris writes:

Chris, thank you for your comments. I know you are spot on. It has just occurred to me that there have been odd occasions when I have “forced” myself to stop trying to make a piece of writing perfect and have let it sit for a few days, in other words, I have emotionally separated from it, detached. When I have come back to it, I have thought that it was quite good and have been able to move on making very few changes to it. So maybe that is the strategy I need to use.

[Reply]