I just read your blog, and found it very interesting and philosophically stimulating. This is yet another example of how you continue to put yourself out there in a very personal and vulnerable way. I have the utmost respect for that.
I thought I had a question about one aspect you raised as a basis for your decision to go public domain, that being liability. I answered my own question as I wrote it:
If you adhere to the concept of ownership as described by Rothbard, Mises and many other prominent libertarian thinkers do you not also claim you and only you have control over your organs & your body, as it is only through your will and your efforts that they continue to exist, and further you are responsible for anything that arises from the use of or proceeds from the labor and expression of your will through your body?
The answer is actually quite simple. Nobody is responsible for the actions of others. Are those that worked out the concepts and science to prove nuclear energy responsible for the deaths that resulted from the application of those ideas into a destructive bomb? That would be tantamount to blaming Einstein for mass murder. Although Oppenheimer did feel considerable guilt for his role in those deaths, that was an unfair burden he placed on himself. He was no more guilty of a crime than a knife maker or gunsmith is on every murderer that uses such weaponry.
What other people do with the tools you create is their responsibility, not the one who creates the tools; tools may be used for both good and evil. It is the intent of the one wielding the tool who is liable for their own actions.
Also, I'm beginning to understand your views on solipsism better, and the quote you used was very good to that end. Whether our "individual" perception is merely the manifestation of a single consciousness or is truly and objectively separate, multiple and autonomous, we act as tho it was the later outside of any tangible evidence to the contrary.
What the writer you quoted was trying to express (as I understood it) was his "feeling" there was little of his personal, individual self involved in his best works, but rather something he believes is more powerful than he could take credit for as the source of is inspiration. He described it quite eloquently, but of course not provably. It is only his subjective opinion, and his attempt to try to explain it is somewhat self contradictory, in the same way as arguing with yourself is.