Caraccioli

Warning! This is a really cheap attempt at viral marketing from the makers of the movie The Golden Compass. (Even worse - it works because I'm posting this.) This looks to be a neat movie coming out this December in the sort of Chronicles of Narnia vein. A friend sent me the link which allows you to go to the page and determine your "dæmon." (A "dæmon" or "familiar" is an animal that is linked to you in a meaningful way.) To get to that part of the page, select "dæmon" from the tabs at the top and then select "Meet your dæmon" from the main page. You answer 20 questions and get an answer. http://www.goldencompassmovie.com Note: I'm not a big fan of the dæmon concept as "fact" (which some people seem to see it as being), but the concept works for me in a movie format. (It also worked well in D&D - one of the characters I played acquired a small dragon dæmon that gave me an extra attack during battles. So there's that.) My dæmon was a tiger named some gobbledygook and it said I am "Modest, shy, a leader, assertive and solitary." Actually, that's not bad from the way I see me, but then it was basically a 20 question personality test.

Unless you're in Key West. (You will be sent to jail in Key West for killing chickens if you're caught.)

I'm sensing a theme here... are there any pyromania re-enactment sites around? (Note: It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were.)

Thanks! I used to write stuff like that all the time. (I vaguely recall a particularly scathing thing on Friday casual dress code...) I was watching Cars last night when I finally figured out that the main car was voiced by Owen Wilson. You know, despite the fact that many of the movies he appears in are not really appealing to my taste in movies, I really like him. Maybe it's because the personality of the characters he plays are so opposite my own (er, not including the red car in the movie - I think that's why it took me a bit to determine that it was him). I wonder if he's really like that or if he's just been typecast?

Hey, Harbormaster. I've long wanted to build a little re-recordable thing to be used in haunted houses. When you work a HH, you usually lose your voice within 2-3 days from yelling all the time. I was thinking of something you could hold in your hand and then trigger to play 3 or 4 seconds of recorded sound every time you push a button. It has to be loud, though. Most of the hand held stuff I've seen isn't loud enough to scare small children. (Loud sounds. Often an important part of scaring people.) I had though about hooking something up to mounted speakers, but that involves having a lot of mounted speakers and wiring and so forth. Any thoughts?

Dear Ladonna Dalton" <mpqbust@adelphia.com> aka Mrs. and/or possibly Mr. Email Spammer, I am writing you to whinge (sorry, not in the market for Viagra just now). So let's not mince worlds and let me proceed with the whinging: If you're going to send me spam emails, at least try to pretend that your email is something I might be interested in. Is that really too much to ask? Take this last thing I received from you. It was entitled: "It whichever combinatoric." What the hell is that?! "combinatoric" doesn't even sound like a valid word! (Although, in fact, it is. The exercise is left to the reader - presuming you read any of your email.) The sentence structure...or rather phrase structure...is utter nonsense! What about this email is there to tempt me to open it? I already know that it's some flagrant attempt to get me to buy Canadian drugs, the stock pick du Jour or something to increase my performance (or length or financial standing or any number of other insecurities you believe I have.) The only reason to open it is to determine whether Schroedinger's cat is, indeed, dead or alive. (No doubt you'll have to look that up too, you wizard of a spammer, you.) I know, I know, you've probably got some random word generation thing that comes up with such tripe and you've got to get your money's worth out of it. Let me tell ya,' pal (or gal); it was a bad investment. It works against the very desire you have, which is to get me to open this unsolicited piece of electronic media and then proceed, dazed and starstruck, to take whatever action you propose in your purple phrase. I hope you bought it from an email your received entitled, "Wonk sipid space jeebers." That would at least hint that universal justice was at work. Love, Caraccioli PS: Wallaby (ROO) is expected to grow by 3500% in the next 10 minutes. I'd buy some if I were you.

Not at all - I'm being serious. I know. I'm not. Nope - not all of us, or even most of us, no matter WHAT our thoughts are focused upon. We get what we're meant to get. Predestination...prestidigitation. I don't buy it. Sheer force of will, pal. So try one. I finally did when I posted that - I've known about them for a long time. I gamed it, but I bet you, like me, can't do so without cheating in the "slow response" direction. And then you know what it means, even if the report is wrong. (I'm not even asking you to report back, because I don't give a flip. I just bet you can't game it by getting in the "right frame of mind." At least not without multiple attempts.) Naw - this is like a dark cozy pub; we're having and telling a few tall ones and in-between there are occasional glimpses of "Whoa" moments. Amen, brother. Where is blackjohn (and Duchess)? Then the circle would be complete. (Maybe blackjohn and I should sit at another table... So if we participate in the mating process we're damned; if we don't, we're damned. Maybe. I don't generally participate in the "mating process" per se. I'm not even remotely interested in the potential result. Why play with fire for fun? Well then, you invest in your outcomes and I'll invest in mine. But I feel you should relinquish your right to complain if that's your operational principle. Anyhow, nice girls are nice. Say... Interesting girls are interesting. Curious girls are curious. Fascinating girls are fascinating. Intellectual girls are intellectual. Ohh, I like the multiple meanings! I think that we have discovered a universal semantic truth. I was just reading today a theory that "" negate the meaning of the material inside the quotes. "Creative" girls are creative. Hm. I think the quotes negated the meaning of the sentence. Oh, never mind. No, I haven't seen that. I haven't been in residence here for a while and I really don't keep up with many threads. Well, start from the beginning if it interests you: http://www.markck.com/images/My%20House/Ho...%20Overview.htm (It's not as forbidding as it might first seem; only the living room and bathroom pages are finished. I am almost done with the bedroom page, but the link isn't working yet since I'm not done. I'm too busy chatting over drinks in the pub.)

Sometimes I think people like to see their name attached to a new thread. Sometimes I think they just want to contribute something. Some people are just young and not thinking all that much about what they're posting. (I don't see that here as much as I used to see it on other forums I moderated.) In the case of your pirate guy they may just want to post a picture of themselves - perhaps with some other motive in mind than just asking such an obvious question. ("You have to remember, in Britain, in the '60s, you could be a sex symbol and have bad teeth." -Mrs. Kensington) It all comes down different people having different ideas about what a forum is for and why they participate. (I find it sort of interesting when friction results because two people see different purposes for a given forum. It's really a problem of definition.) So let me pose another question: What is the purpose of a forum?

Aw, now you're baiting me. Disagree. You don't think we get what we really want? (Even if it's not what we spend our 40 thoughts per second focused upon?) Don't forget that we have this great vast subconscious that moves us in ways we do not fully (consciously) comprehend... so I submit that we get what we ultimately want, even if we're not fully aware of it. (Want a small insight into just how much you don't consciously know about yourself? Check out this fascinating battery of tests at the Harvard web site: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/.../takeatest.html -- I should post this somewhere where everyone but you and I and the occasional lost soul who peers into this apparently forbidding thread can see it. Maybe I will...maybe I won't. (This reminds me of the peanuts class where Lucy is seen writing at a desk in an empty classroom - "I will not talk in class, I will not talk in class, I will not talk in class, On the other hand, who knows what I'll do?") Ahhh...no, I didn't quite like that one - not because I haven't played with it myself (I have), but because the results were not forthcoming when I did. It's like when they say "How come the bad guys always end up on top?". My son recently had an encounter with the fairer sex in regards to the Big Prom. She had evidently strung him along for 6 months, promising to attend the prom with him, then when the prom was 2 weeks away she dumped him. Exquisite timing. His comment to me was, "How come they (girls) always go for the bad guys? I'm a good guy, right? How come they flock around the losers and the druggies and the jerks?" My answer? "Welcome to the Game, son." And yet you're not a cynic... I could ask the question as, "How come guys always choose the girls who are likely to ultimately choose the loosers and the druggies and the jerks?" I recall several nice girls in h.s. who wanted nothing to do with such people. I contend that the cues are nearly always there, we just sometimes choose to ignore them. (Failure is just another way to say "opportunity for learning.) Evidently you've spent some time checking this stuff out. I'm even starting to think you've owned one at one time or another... 11 years. The themes in my house are visual paeans to things that have been important to me in my life at one time or another up to this point. It's a fun exercise and an enjoyable creative challenge. You've seen my web page on the pirate-themed living room, haven't you?

That's a good one. So is the really old book smell, though.

Oh, yes...I seem to remember you getting into a big argument with someone about selfishness. (There is a certain limitation to your position - as there is to any position, I suppose. That's the trouble with models of reality.) I always enjoy planning then if only so I can live in the limitless world of possibility. The results are just the artifacts of the creative process. Never, but I'll certainly search for it now - thank you! Por nada. I would expect you may have unwittingly heard some of it on NPR. It is very much in their style (depending on which hour they're on.) Works for me. To thine own self...and all that. Funny, I never had that impression at all. I'm simply highlighting something I disagree with you about and explaining my perspective. (Or, if you like, revealing the truth as received from the school of hard knocks.) Well, it would help if you weren't such an unsmiling, nasty ol' cuss of a mountain-man... No, I'm merely acknowledging that although we can choose to live in self-created prisons, we can also glimpse the outside world and, if it is important enough to us, break out and live in that world. We do what we want in life - some more than others (my main supporting argument on the topic of pirate lifestyle), but all have the same ability to choose. "Prisons..." Such a choice of wording (or, a label). Rather than "we do what we want in life," I'd say, "We get what we want from life," and even, "We choose what we get from life." People who live in perceived unhappy surroundings take great exception to that statement, but I tend to believe it's true based on my experiences. It springs from the notion that we create our own world and then we live in what we've created. (Or, we attract what we put out into the world on some level. But you didn't like that one.) I did that a long time ago. Maybe that should be my signature. Coolness! Are you going to have pneumatic arms on the doors? If so, will they be electrically actuated? Gas cylinder arms are a must for the cabinet. The girl I was working with at Lowe's (Sarah) was asking me why I was taking up the space to put them in until I explained it. (Which she quickly grokked. She suggested the windows in the cabinet doors and the mirrors. Sarah is very cool - quite creative. She's putting parts of my project on her resume. ) However, the electric sound was something created for the BTTF movies. Some ingenious DMC owner did create a little electric piston device that wired into the power door locks so that when the door was electronically unlocked, the piston nudged the door open, allowing it to swing up if the gas cylinders were working. (If not used often enough, they tend to become rather sluggish.) He's probably not quite as Taoist as you think. He had plastic surgery so he would look more appealing. He was also quite driven (and angry at GM) until he got in too deep with the foolish drug thing.

Yet you care about the SUV people. Or do you only care about those things which impact you personally? (Your three reasons suggest this to me, but I am inferring.) Yes, this "live in the moment" thing has always been hard for me to grasp. I like possibilities and they are grounded in the future. The moment is fascinating and I have experimented with focusing on things here and now, but my mind always wanders to what could be and how it is I will get there. (I am also quite bad at eliminating stray thoughts during meditation, so I just take the "go with it" philosophy in regard to that sport.) Now you might say, "striving but never arriving!" You might even be right. I most enjoy learning new skills and creating what I envision, however. It is the source of what I perceive of as my mastery. So if I am violating a core Taoist principle, so be it. Kind of like "the only people who can see ghosts are those who believe in them" theory, eh? I see your point. However, there is good and bed in everything. According to the book The Adaptive Unconscious by Psychologist Timothy Wilson (and corroborated elsewhere in the psychology literature), we receive over 11 million pieces of information per second but our conscious can only process forty of them. Four-zero. (This sort of puts a kink in the "focus on the moment" theory of existence, but I'll leave that alone.) So, whatever our personal philosophies might suggest, these facts suggest rather firmly that we must choose what we focus upon. I figure about half are "good" and half are not (That's guesswork, admittedly, but probably not too far off. I'm sure 40 of them are good in any event.) I'd rather attempt to focus on 40 good things out of the 11 million than 40 bad things. Sorry - I neither read newspapers nor watch TV; I listen only to classical and/or jazz music on NPR, or my own library of music. In this, I suppose I could be considered an optimist Have you ever listened to the Buddha Bar series? I don't know what the Buddha connection is (and, for the most part, doubt there is any), but the music is jazzy world music. Sample it if you get an opportunity, you might like it as we seem to have some parallel musical tastes. It matters to ME because I want to die knowing I've known the truth and... Know the truth! Good one! (There we apparently disagree drastically. I don't think we can know the truth. We can at best approximate it.) Unfortunately whenever I do this, they either: 1) Think I am a simpering moron and patronize me 2) Think I am up to something and stay away, or 3) They are so wrapped up worrying about their future, good or bad, that they don't even see me smiling None of those reactions are what I need. People smiling at me all day make me nervous... ... ...because I figure they're either morons, are up to something or...I don't remember the last thing - I was just thinking of something I have to do tomorrow... A fine example of getting what you expect and interpreting your world using your inherent bias by focusing on certain elements in the environment. In a sense, yes, I think they are. I have been both at different times and much more enjoy being an optimist. At the core of all this is probably the notion that I think our world view is almost unalterably skewed by our past experiences and so we live in the world of our own making. You previously agreed with this, but now you seem to be backtracking and saying there is an ability to see outside of our self-created world. (Assuming we can comprehend the truth, for example.) If that is so, I'm not sure there's much further for us to go with this. Perhaps we may as well agree to disagree. Thank you. Alas, creating a web page is such a time-consuming process that I don't generally do much with that facet until the project is done. (End of summer?) Suffice it to say that the room will be grey, black and red with stainless steel appliances, a black contoured countertop and some other curiously appropriate items. One of the central features will be the upper cupboards, however, and I do have renderings of them posted on the kitchen page. (In fact, that's all I have posted there.) You can see that here. I have actually modified them since I drew that - all that possibility thinking - and the finished product will feature mirrors in the back, black "leather" inside walls and tinted windows mounted in the front of the cupboard door.

That's interesting, but we're already there, so I think the reasons are no longer the primary concern. (Sorry Patrick) What is our objective now? What, in a sentence, is our goal in Iraq at this point? (Or at least in a paragraph...)

Let's us talk about unlearning. The most important thing I believe I unlearned was pessimism (né "realism"). I suspect I originally learned pessimism from the media and some of those around me then found it subtly pile-driven home by college professors. (What is it about them, education and the pessimistic view of the world? The more I learn the more optimistic I become.) It was during the slow churning of my divorce that I began to re-evaluate my outlook. (It often takes a crisis to initiate change.) Before I begin my diatribe, let me note that there is a difference between what I think of as optimism and the Pollyanna view of the world. (Although there is probably some validity even in that. I suggest the Pollyanna lives a better existence than the "realist" any day. At the end of your days, what difference does it make how "correctly" you viewed things? I posit that this mania for correctness has some discernible overtones of peer pressure in it.) Several elements gradually became linked in my consciousness that necessitated the unlearning of pessimism. I have been pondering them for the past few days and I hope I've gotten most of them. (For, surely, I haven't gotten them all.) To list, then! First, as discussed several times, we define our own world and our world is different than anyone else's world. So it completely up to me to decide how I want to view what's going on about me. In every event, there are elements of good and bad. (Yes, I'll go on record is having committed the crime of listing an absolute.) Even Frankl found something to hope for in what had to be one of the most hopeless of situations. So now, what am I to choose from the pallet of goods and bads that the environment inevitably presents me? It's my choice. Everything contains a choice! (Oh, two absolutes. The shame, the shame...) Second, we attract what we focus upon. Or, if you like the somewhat dour phrasing, "a moth is drawn to the flame." So, if I choose to see all the negatives out there (and, as stated above, they are surely there), then I get to live them every day. My world becomes as bleak and joyless as the garbage that I am focusing upon. This is why I do not intentionally follow newspapers and other media sources for the most part. They have all but openly admitted that they are committed to the mantra, "bad news sells." Why invite that into my life? (Oh, yes, that means I'm not being realistic. Such a pity, such a pity. Tell you what - you be twice as realistic to cover for me. Better you should choose wade in the stream of popular dung than I.) Third, the environment reflects us back to ourselves. This is sort of a combination of the two concepts above, but I think it deserves a bullet point. Here's a simple test for the obdurate realist: for the next few days, smile at everyone you meet. Find one simple thing about the wait-staff or store personnel on which to compliment them. (If you are completely committed to a chosen unhappy world view, you may choose to limit your attempt to a day or even a morning.) What happens? People smile at you! The reveal things about themselves that are often interesting! You learn things! Why? Because they are reflecting you back to yourself. (Or at least the you suit that you have put on for the duration of the experiment.) Is it easier to go through the day with people smiling at you? I don't know, of course, but I find it is for me. People smiling at me make me want to smile for some reason... Fourth, life is easier for an optimist. You don't have to spend all that time fretting about the past - focusing on how poorly you did this, how badly that went, how awful the other is - and how miserable the future will be. Instead you can begin to explore possibilities, unfold ideas, create new vistas and grow as a result. I suspect growth is much harder for someone who can only see the mired thicket of the past, the bleak outlines of the present and the dim, hopeless outlook of the future. Why bother going on? All is lost as it always has been and always will be... Pah. I love creating new things. I can't wait to see my Delorean themed kitchen. (Not because it's "stuff" and "technology" and whatnot, but because I envisioned it and I will get to breathe life into it. And, oh how I am learning in the process. I believe productive learning and optimism go hand-in-hand. There was a fifth one, but I got all excited thinking about my kitchen project and I've forgotten it. Perhaps it will come to me later. Optimism - a great unlearned lesson for me. For now, I'm going to go get to work on my cool shelves I designed. It's a beautiful day here and my table saw is calling. Perhaps I'll post photos of the shelf.

Quite! I think I avoided reading the Holmes tomes in preparation for allowing them to be revealed to me by Brett. His mannerisms and tone of voice are priceless. (I do so enjoy watching people who speak directly and intelligently.) Although the first show, The Hound of Baskervilles, wasn't quite as interesting as the show that followed for me. Fortunately, I learned from other shows (like Firefly) that you can't always judge a book by its cover.

Isn't that fascinating? Imagine if you could see all the photographs and video images you wind up being in? I've heard that the average person is captured several times a day on surveillance cameras (Was it 10 times? 11? I don't recall.) This is why I never take many pictures on vacation. (Note: that's a blatant lie.) Someone else is taking pictures for me. Maybe I'll get to see them all when I die or something.

You know, I was thinking about this the other day while I was reading about General Ridgeway. (you can see the article I was reading here.) In the article, they said, "During one briefing, he listened while officers explained their defensive strategies. Finally, he asked about the attack plan. The startled staff said it had none. Within days, Ridgway replaced key officers." I don't know much about the war, so I can't speak all that intelligently about most of it as I can on topics that interest me more, but this quote brought to mind something for me. What is the objective of the conflict? Not in broad, hazy, "eliminate terrorism" terms (which is silly - the only way to do that is to confine everyone in the world to their rooms without supper), or overly-specific "take this specific sector" terms (although that is important for specific units.) Rather, what, specifically, are we trying to achieve at this point? What is our goal? If you asked the people running the war, my suspicion is that that would be as startled as the officers responding to Ridgeway. It seems to me that for anyone to succeed at anything like this, an objective is required. (Not a timeline. A timeline is just a nice way to say "give up". Even the most unrealistic idealists must be able to comprehend that we're far too committed to do that at this point.) I think we need a specific goal that people can rally around - soldiers and civilians alike. (Well, except for the rabid anti-Bush crowd. They won't like any solution unless it makes GWB look bad. But they view the war as a pawn in a chess game, so their suggestions are not to be trusted in my book.)

I suppose, when it comes to categories, I like them small for things that don't interest me so that I don't have to waste any psychic energy on them. Right now, words are the primary medium we have for exchanging mental pictures. Although I was thinking the other day how interesting it would be to be able to exchange a picture of something I have envisaged whole to another person. Since our minds actually think in pictures, it would seem to me to be the way to transmit ideas fully, with the least lost information. However, we haven't found the medium...yet. Possible, but highly unlikely if you both stay true to your professed types. (He also embraces the ne'er to travel 20 miles without cause philosophy. He only grudgingly turned in his no A/C, manual, AM radio (only because it came with it) 10-year old Chevy S-10 when its mileage suggested that it was more of a threat to the environment than an alternative might.) Now are you purposely baiting me with a comment like that? Of course you realize that drug czars, contract hitmen, insider-trading stiffs and lottery winners live the life of Reilly without performing "good" work. Ah, but I never said prosperity couldn't result from other activities. (As a foot note, did you know that most lottery winners declare bankruptcy within something like an average of five years? They never learned to manage money, so giving them wads of it is like trying to carry sand in a sieve. There's a certain mastery of skill required for effective money-management. [There. Now I'm baiting you.]) Too bad, really. She's terrifically bright. She also knows more about theoretical physics than the two of us combined. I might suggest that, in some ways, she's even a bit more of a realist than you (No offense intended. Just my observation having talked with you both. (BTW, I've sort of hinted at it, but, for the record, I not much of a realist any more. (Or am I?)) Everyone lives in their own world and thus has their own insights into life. I find that fascinating. Some insight are very acute - and they sting. As I've always suspected, you DO use the subtractive method in your mental quests :>) Have I suggested otherwise? I've done a fair bit of unlearning myself. While I like shorthand for things that don't interest me, I also recognize that if I fail to explore the details of the things that do interest me, I can do nothing but parrot what has already been done. This is a tool of mastery. (That makes it technology.) How about if I offer you "The greatest joy is to do the work only to participate in the process, without regard to the final goal"? Sure. You've essentially restated what I said with clarification of the phrase "...to have done it." ("it" being the work not the result of the work.) I "care" about them only because: 1. By creating demand for such products, they are depleting the natural resources of the planet upon which I must live my life Curiously, by improving technology, we often (in fact, I might even go so far as to say "usually") expand the resource or discover new resources that are more efficient. Take gasoline as an example. In the early 70's (more than 40 years ago) The Club of Rome told us that we would run out of oil within 40 years. By 1980, we had created the fuel injector which increased the potential supply of gasoline by improving fuel consumption. We had created a new pipeline to Alaska (new technology) which increased the supply. We have recently found ways to drill deeper into the ocean, use previously unusable oil, get oil from shale, etc., etc., etc. Eventually, we will create something that will allow us to abandon oil for the most part in favor of something else (probably solar power, but I'm not a mystic, so I don't know for sure.) Then, like whale oil, it will eventually go the way of all inefficient technologies. (Incidentally, there were dire predictions of our running out of whale oil in the mid/late 1800s. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.) Weren't you just complaining about there being too many people? I sort of subscribe to the idea that when it's time to go, you're going. (This is not provable.) Besides, you know that life and death are the largest circles in the human lifespan (thus the term). I note again that everything results in trade-offs. Society seems prepared to accept this one, even if you are not. But I guess you have the right to be upset with society. (Well, obviously.) Check back in with me in 20 years and let me know how that strategy works for you. Oops, it should have been, "Aren't you going to soon complain about there being too many people? " Mine won't. (What?! Melodrama, again?!) Hm. I've traveled for more for exploration and expansion of my horizons than for business. (I think. Well, I haven't kept track to be honest.) I like seeing new places. It can be very restive and often adds to and improves ideas.

I recently procured the Buddha Bar III and IV albums and put them on my iPod. So far, I think BBIV is the best one I've come across yet. I usually just use it for background music, but the song Monsoon by Flam is definitely going on my Jazz playlist.

This is a good topic idea, but I think it would be better suited to Pirate Pop. So I'm going to send it over there. (I like the blue one, but I don't wear pins because I forget to remove them and the wind up making funny sounds as they scrape around in the dryer drum.)

See, labels are a form of technology used to more quickly refer to something. Information is certainly lost as the the category of the label becomes broader, however. This is the trade-off. (We've never reached agreement on the concept of labeling. I doubt we will. (Words are labels. ) Nor do I see technology as being "folly." It's a tool. (In fact, tools are technology by my definition. So is "rubbing" rather than "poking" your eye.) I've said before (somewhere) that tools are neither good nor bad. It is how we conceive of them and use them (or, basically, "label" them) that gives them meaning. Fission gives us bombs...and a way to produce energy. (It took the government to produce the bombs. (Where's that little devil icon I'm always wishing for?)) Anyhow, being insulin-dependent since I was 7, I have a startling appreciation for forward progress and technology. In fact, you would not know of John had technology not brought us here (not to mention keeping me alive long past my due date - I'd have lived about 3-5 miserable years - miserable because of the exorbitantly high blood sugar. But I suppose I'm being somewhat melodramatic.) As for the market for theoretical physics...ask Duchess. She'll open your eyes a bit. (Ever heard of quantum bit encryption? Very interesting. Not marketable yet, but it will be...) On to my view of a master. I mentally understand your cry for simplicity and even embrace the illusionary nature of our nature, but there is also something to be said for listening to a guy explain Western economic history while driving to work causing me to ponder ideas that I would otherwise probably have not come in contact with. Is it ultimately illusionary? In a sense, I think you're right. Still, my greatest joy is to unravel ideas and reach a point where I can use them for something. I am reminded of a favorite Michener quote, “Ideas! Ideas! They are the fuel that keeps a brain functioning at a high level...Ideas have been the joy of my life and in my ninth decade, I am still striving to understand those that are beyond my grasp while finding great comfort in those I do understand.” –James Michener But I'm wandering OT again... Prosperity results from doing good work. Is it the ultimate reward? No, of course not. The reward for doing good work is to have done the work and enjoyed the doing. In Western culture, it is just one of the pleasurable dividends. I might agree with you if you said, "The greatest joy is to do the work only to have done it." However, unless you are willing to go truly mountain man, you need to keep yourself fed and watered. The body may be the spiritual garage, but even garages have to have a solid foundation, strong walls and a well maintained roof. The dualistic nature of being human and all that. I indulge both sides. This reminds me of the completely irreverent (at this point) quote by Doc Brown: "Wait a minute, Doc. Ah... Are you telling me you built a time machine... out of a DeLorean?" "The way I see it, if you're gonna build a time machine into a car, why not do it with some style?" Call me hopeless. (Go ahead.) I can't for the life of me understand why you care a whit about the person with the SUV with the flat panel. My friend John (who is probably my best friend at this point) does likewise? Why spend any mental energy at all on people doing something that doesn't really affect you? They have their world and you have yours. (We established this in the mastery thread, I believe.) I do think some people are coming to better realize that happiness doesn't come from acquisition. I'm not so sure about the pursuit, however. I suspect this has more to with personality preferences than anything else. Some people love the pursuit, it drives them. Some people think being driven is spiritual sickness. I think both are right in a way. If you were to take the competition away from the competitor, my suspicion is that they would find another way to gratify this urge. I guess that makes it subconscious as I'm explaining it. I don't have a problem with such views, myself. I think some people could unlearn them, but others...well I have my doubts. If only because they wouldn't want to. Enforcing anything is a serious crime in my book. (Not that I'm suggesting you would enforce anything, but how else to get that lover of competition to eschew it? Education? I'm sure you've met people (especially wily competitors) who squirm in their figurative seats when you try to educate them. More unlearning? You may be fighting an uphill battle with a spoon there.) BTW, this tape actually suggests that it is the lack of development of several technologies (although he doesn't call them that) that has made AIDS such a problem in Africa.

Gee and I was beginning to think I was writing to myself in this thread. (Not that I mind doing that. Some day, I really must copy this stuff into a Word file so I can look back upon it in my doddering years and laugh at myself. ) I see your point, caustic though it tends to be. I think you're shooting the messenger, myself. I am still listening to that book on tape and the guy made a very interesting point that can be worked into this discussion. He was talking about the various innovations in the early centuries (the small ones with less than 2 numbers in them or even "pre-" history) and he noted some of the marvelous things that had been developed by the Greeks and Romans, but which were left aside as - guess who - the church became the dominant power in the European world. Interestingly, this behavior wasn't confined to the European nations during this period. In Asia, they had other, smaller despots controlling the development of "technology" (I will explain the quotes in a minute). For example, the Emperor of China co-opted all kinds of ingenious creations like paper, the bill of sale and probably fireworks. (Some would also argue that the Eastern "religions" themselves work against embracing technology. In fact, it might be the basis of your argument.) The church could not control an unruly, creative populace, so they squelched all that by making themselves keepers of the truth. The upshot is that the Church, more than stopping innovation, actually pushed the frontiers back quite dramatically. It had been suggested that the most logical explanation for various astronomical observances was that the Earth rotated around the Sun long before Copernicus figured it out. The author thus suggested that we may have reached the moon five hundred years earlier had this not occurred. (Think of it. The mind reels at what we might be doing today (er, restricting my imaginings to positive events as is my wont.) I must define "technology" though. (At least define it as I see it.) In my mental maundering, technology is simply a better way to do something. If you determine that putting your produce on a simple raft and poling down the gently wandering stream that flows through your property is better than carrying it by the armload, you have "discovered" new technology that will serve you. By the same token, if you figure that crushed gooseberries can be added to the wash to create a nicely hued cloth, you have a new technology. Of course, technologies are, by their very nature, linked directly to commerce. Our views on commerce are quite different, though. While the siren song of striving and accumulating calls many, I don't see it as a negative until it has consumed one's life and become an addiction. In fact, commerce is really an enabler of masters. After all, we can't all be philosophers. (In fact, most people aren't suited to it at all.) So people may as well do the work that they are suited for and that suits them as (I believe) it will make them happiest, give them the potential for mastery and (if they avoid the addictive aspects) ultimately make them the most prosperous. Note too...I think prosperity is a good thing in a general sense. It too can balloon beyond all reasonable bounds (and you might argue that it has - and I would even agree with you in some cases), but when you factor Maslow's Hierarchy in...well, it just makes sense that we are best to embrace it - up to a point. See that we have returned with the inevitability of summer rain to the discussion of mastery. In my (possibly rose-colored) view, a master is someone who loves the craft of his mastery and is constantly searching for better, more efficient ways of producing top-quality output. I must pause again for a definition, so as to be clear. A "craft of mastery" is not limited to a creative product or even any product. One can master jurisprudence or statesmanship or teaching or quantum physics (ah, one of my favorite great people Feynman comes to mind again.) So, while craftsmanship is often associated with furniture and pottery, I think that is a narrow and dismissive view of an important idea. But I digress again (I do that.) My point is that my "master" is ever exploring new technology, embracing that which adds and rejecting that which deducts. It's true even in the teaching field. You know, I've got about another page of material in my head, but I'm going to stop with one last comment. Your comment about automobiles... I can see why you think this, but I think the benefits outweigh the risks. (From an Eastern POV, I suspect this is practically an illogical statement.) I've a good friend, John, who is essentially a Luddite (and proud of this fact) and craves simplicity in all things, but grudgingly accepts the conditions of living in a Western culture. So he carves out a little Eastern-style niche in his home. (Although he doesn't think of it as being particularly Eastern - he embraced the, er, "technology of simplicity" through experimentation. His concession to spirituality is a small icon to the goddess of nature in his garden.) My view is that being able to move more things and with greater speed enriches our lives. We could go backwards (as John might want) and return to transport by horse or some such - but we would also have to embrace the resultant spread of disease and the sullied conditions of the roadways - a trade-off of risks. Or we could go all out and say there is no reason to ever travel more than 20 miles from your origin and be right back in the dark ages (literally) when the church controlled innovation. The only difference would be that we choose to impede our progress rather than have it shoved down our throats. Me? I like eating a banana most mornings, purchased at 39¢ - 49¢ a pound - and I couldn't do that without modern ocean/air and motor/rail transportation, competition between large supermarkets and other, similar "technologies." So, for me, the benefits outweigh the costs. Of course, my pal John would say I have sold my soul for a banana. (This is why I am committed to having Sunday dinner with he, his wife, son and brother Rick (an ex-Cappuchin monk) at least twice a month for as long as they'll feed me. (Note: they buy bananas too.))

Rumba, I got your plunder. My dear, I am going to tell my family to contact you when they are trying to figure out what to give me as a gift. (Which, in itself, is an absurd problem, but I'll leave that alone...) Apparently, I am difficult to buy for. The bracelet with all the pirate skulls is particularly cool.

Oh, what a visual...

I was listening to the book on tape about economic history (The Birth of Plenty : How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created by William Bernstein - very interesting) and the author made the point that Western prosperity is sort of a perpetual motion machine. (Sorry, Phil. ). Which is interesting, but will probably not ultimately be true in a historical sense. However it lead me to thinking... The perpetual motion machine is considered a physical impossibility in a mechanical sense. (Wiki has a nice discussion of the history of the ppms if it interests you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pe...motion_machines Side note: Feynman proposed Brownian motion as having the potential to create perpetual motion, although he also proved that it wouldn't work in practice. ) Anyhow, where I think the author missed the boat on the "mental ppm" is in the way he defined it. (I am going frame my point in light of the collective consciousness concept (if you believe in this sort of thing.)) Rather than limiting perpetual mental motion to commerce, I think you need to look at the whole of human history and see what has driven things like commerce. It really comes down to creativity. I think creativity is the single most valuable human trait we possess and it never seems to give out. When you factor the collective consciousness in, creativity builds upon itself, reaching to ever higher and higher heights. We start with a simple idea (say traveling) and we create ever better ways to improve upon that idea (harnessing the horse comfortably, the wheel, the wagon, the bicycle, the addition of the steam engine to the wheel (trains), the automobile, the glider, the airplane and so forth...) And you could offer examples in every man-made endeavor from the dwelling to quantum physics. It isn't necessarily commerce and gain that drive creativity (although they often help), it's man's innate creativity. And creativity is limited only to the timescale of mankind. That's a mental perpetual motion machine.