illustration (attribution, if any possible, is at the end of the article)
With 17 donators in December, I suppose my post on what constitutes a long-lasting gift (gplus.wallez.name/G1FqX3CELKJ) was unheard. I will hope that those who considered buying material gifts have at least been able to engage at Christmas (gplus.wallez.name/D39sGfCZ6FY) and were not too disappointed when the "perfect gift" was not as appreciated as it deserved.
When discussing funding, I keep being told that people are a lot more ready to buy something tangible (e.g. a book) than to make donations. This basically means people are ready to give money for what is less convenient to access, less convenient to search, ready to give money for what they're unlikely to finish reading versus what is in smaller, digestible bites seamlessly integrated in one's daily life… I can observe this is true, but does it make sense? Should we take this tendency for granted, for an immutable fact of modern life?
What I currently do is not geared towards 'stored' wisdom. Accessing a big 'store' of wisdom, or knowledge, "in one go" is commonly a lot less valuable than reflecting every day; hence I believe that providing food for thought on a regular basis, as I do, is a lot more valuable to you than writing a book. Just like meditating 10 minutes every day is a lot more valuable than meditating 10 hours once every two months. But, for now, it seems people would appreciate more what would serve them less. Do I have to rely on (i.e. promote) an irrational behaviour to continue serving you?
Please #donate at koan.mu/donate.htm