Quote:
Originally Posted by David
People here who work to expand their knowledge do not deserve to reap this stolen cultural artifact as their "reward".  |
The excessive monetary "reward" was determined, not by the individual who hoped to earn compensation for his knowledge, his purchase and powers of observation, but by those who chose to competitively bid for the object in question.
It's difficult to determine ownership of an object created and used in secret; it's equally difficult to ascribe a value. As it's likely that anyone connected with the secret is dead, and the clandestine nature of the root organisation renders it obscure, it becomes impossible to ascertain ownership.
Insofar as admitting belonging to a secret organisation would either expose it to view, creating an existential problem, or would be a fraudulent claim by someone hoping to profit from knowledge obtained contrary to the tenets of the secret society, it would seem problematic regarding both ownership and violation of the intended rules of the originators of the object.
Throughout history, the pragmatism of the concept "to the victor belongs the spoils" has applied. Complaining about the implicit barbarism of the concept may feel uplifting, but a goodly portion of what folks here, as well as museums and cultural repositories study, collect, buy and sell might fall under question regarding ownership and cultural appropriation.
It somehow seems coupled with demonstrating virtue while ignoring reality. Of course, after seven decades of experience on this planet, the veneer of civilisation has probably been ground off of my essential barbarism.
Merely an alternative perspective, of course.