>On Thu, Dec 03, 1998 at 12:42:38PM -0600, Dwight Hughes wrote:
>> A comparison I like to use is that open source is to closed source as
>> science was to alchemy. Science is built by sharing knowledge and
>> discoveries openly so the work of anyone can be built on by everyone
>> else -- alchemists hoarded their knowledge and discoveries, each to
>> himself - his knowledge dying with him, so each generation started anew,
>> and no one got very far. When products or their companies die they take
>> many person-years of knowledge and discoveries down the drain with them,
>> which gets laborously reinvented to a greater or lesser degree of skill
>> again and again and again.

This does some disservice to the Alchemists.  [1] Alchemists did write 
and have an extensive literature (13 centuries worth, e.g. see 
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/home.html), [2] The church, particularly 
during the inquisition, was a formadable force requiring much 
circumspection and circumlocution (also clever publishing using special 
type faces).  Of course one could make the comparison between high-cost, 
patented, closed software and ...

Note that the vast bulk of Alchemical writings delt almost not at all 
with with chemistry and 'vulgar gold' but mostly with gnostic experience 
and 'philosophical gold' (though projected into matter).

>There's a good article by Tim O'Reilly in Esther Dyson's "Release 1.0":
>
>|Imagine for a moment, if Newton had withheld his laws of motion, and
>|instead gone into business as a defense contractor to artillerists
>|following the 30 Years War. "No, I won't tell you how I know about 
>|parabolic trajectories, but I'll calibrate your guns for a fee." 

Much beter analogy!


FYI, a few good texts on the psychological aspects of Alchemy:

Marie-Louise von Franz,
   _Alchemy, An Inroduction to the Symbolism and the Psychology_

Edward Edinger,
   _Anatomy of the Psyche, Alchemical Symbolism in Psychotherapy_

Carl Jung,
  _Psychology and Alchemy_, _Mysterium Coniunctionis_


Cheers,
-KenD