So, the plan is to develop a space that might serve as a refuse, a respite, a safe haven for the long now, say a thousand years.
My motivations include many of the motivations of the folks at thelongnow.org
But there is more; other dimensions.
They are mostly concerned with advocacy and education - in what for me is an entertaining fashion.
Me, I fancy I go beyond that. I would have a place that operates as a sanctuary in times of trouble. Or times when the infrastructure that we now take for granted is no longer available. Infrastructure like the electrical grid that supplies virtually unlimited power (for an individual or family) at insignificant cost, almost anywhere, 24x7xanytime. Or the road/car infrastructure including the gas that powers the whole shebang.
I thought if those things go for the big crapola, and are no longer available, how is one to stay alive. How will you stay warm? What will you eat and drink?
These are the difficult questions, that the Rosseau Project is intended to address. And by the plan, to realize a solution for. A place where you can stay warm, and you can eat and drink, independent of the complex machinery of today's society in full operation.
It matters not much what catalyst might bring about the troubles where the infrastructure things we rely on at all times go bust. It only matters that one recognizes the meaningful probability, as best as it may be estimated, of some form of collapse. Once you are there, then it is only natural I say, that you would want to provide some form of insurance policy, some sort of safety outlet, where you and yours - through a few generations, might continue.
I occasionally recognize this last angle as a variation on a fairly familiar theme espoused by some crackpots called "survivalists". They tend to have a rather short view of the long term. So that's one distinction anyway. (As Hein says: A cow is not a horse. A horse is not a cow. That's one similarity anyhow.)
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Project sanctuary
Don't read too much into the title; consider it provisional.
I wish to write about a project I have started and hope to build on significantly in this last decade or so of my productive life; fates and God willin'.
The centerpiece of the project is to be a structure for living purposes. Chief amongst its design objectives is to serve a small but changing group, directly, for a 1,000 years. And indirectly a much larger number of folk.
A 12 hectacre +/- plot, on which I hold the fee (ancient English /French? legal term meaning as full ownership as a body can get in a plot of land) is where I have started. It's about 12 km east of Rosseau, in the Township of Muskoka Lakes. How's that for a petty township name.
I am inspired in this effort by a project headed originally by Danny Hillis, renowned computer scientist and all round genius. He is building a 10,000 year clock, with more seriousness than I'll bet you imagine.
Check it out at thelongnow.org
Who cares if he succeeds. The project may be seen as an exercise with many dimensions, most of them eminently meritorious, and most of them providing value even at these early stages.
The big message I suppose is that it is right and good to keep the long term in mind, and that it should contribute to how one lives one's life.
That's a start for tonight. Got further than I thought I would. Back at'er soon I trust.
m
I wish to write about a project I have started and hope to build on significantly in this last decade or so of my productive life; fates and God willin'.
The centerpiece of the project is to be a structure for living purposes. Chief amongst its design objectives is to serve a small but changing group, directly, for a 1,000 years. And indirectly a much larger number of folk.
A 12 hectacre +/- plot, on which I hold the fee (ancient English /French? legal term meaning as full ownership as a body can get in a plot of land) is where I have started. It's about 12 km east of Rosseau, in the Township of Muskoka Lakes. How's that for a petty township name.
I am inspired in this effort by a project headed originally by Danny Hillis, renowned computer scientist and all round genius. He is building a 10,000 year clock, with more seriousness than I'll bet you imagine.
Check it out at thelongnow.org
Who cares if he succeeds. The project may be seen as an exercise with many dimensions, most of them eminently meritorious, and most of them providing value even at these early stages.
The big message I suppose is that it is right and good to keep the long term in mind, and that it should contribute to how one lives one's life.
That's a start for tonight. Got further than I thought I would. Back at'er soon I trust.
m
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Midnight Reflexions
It's midnitght.
At 277 Elm (45N78W)
Curling season just finished with loss in 3rd game of annual Men's Industrial spiel (I've over 20 consecutive of them under my belt.)
It is, he says, Ed's last came with the Barristers.
Sad really, but we've had plenty of warning, which is the most you can expect.
By tuyping this little intro I lost the main thought, brief as it was.
Gone.
Trying to recall it but all the while typing.
It was a curmudgeonly thought, as I recall.
Rather cynical.
But with the potential to be humourous.
Oh yeah,.
I think it had to do with having everything I want.
I got it all.
As much, in any respect, as I ought to have.
Oh yeah, here's the slogan that occurred to me.
I'm a species kind of guy.
Not so much a Canadian.
Or an Ontarian.
Or a Sudburian.
Or a Northerner.
Or of European ancestory. (Gaelish or Gaulleish or a mix).
Or should those 'Or-s' be 'Nor-s'., save for the last.
That's who I'm pulling for.
Leastwise in the short run.
I'm pulling for good ol' Homo Sapiens.
With a longer run view that a new, improved species will eventually emerge,
at which point I'll be pulling for that new species
That's my job.
Or my 'raison d'etre'.
My grand purpose in life.
To ensure we Progress.
And with certainty, the conventional wisdom about Progress,
on an evolutionary time scale,
involves a preferred species.
At 277 Elm (45N78W)
Curling season just finished with loss in 3rd game of annual Men's Industrial spiel (I've over 20 consecutive of them under my belt.)
It is, he says, Ed's last came with the Barristers.
Sad really, but we've had plenty of warning, which is the most you can expect.
By tuyping this little intro I lost the main thought, brief as it was.
Gone.
Trying to recall it but all the while typing.
It was a curmudgeonly thought, as I recall.
Rather cynical.
But with the potential to be humourous.
Oh yeah,.
I think it had to do with having everything I want.
I got it all.
As much, in any respect, as I ought to have.
Oh yeah, here's the slogan that occurred to me.
I'm a species kind of guy.
Not so much a Canadian.
Or an Ontarian.
Or a Sudburian.
Or a Northerner.
Or of European ancestory. (Gaelish or Gaulleish or a mix).
Or should those 'Or-s' be 'Nor-s'., save for the last.
That's who I'm pulling for.
Leastwise in the short run.
I'm pulling for good ol' Homo Sapiens.
With a longer run view that a new, improved species will eventually emerge,
at which point I'll be pulling for that new species
That's my job.
Or my 'raison d'etre'.
My grand purpose in life.
To ensure we Progress.
And with certainty, the conventional wisdom about Progress,
on an evolutionary time scale,
involves a preferred species.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Well Intentioned Misdeed - The Idling Bylaw
Ask a pharmacist (or general medical practitioner for that matter) how to treat back pains and chances are good that medication for pain relief and muscle relaxation will be prescribed. Ask an acupuncturist for advice on the same back pain, and don't be surprised if a course of acupuncture is prescribed. Ask a chiropractor and the answer is sure to be a series of chiropractic spinal manipulations. Ask a physiotherapist and you're in for a rigorous exercise regimen, otherwise called physical therapy.
Can you see a pattern developing?
Now take the concern of idling motor vehicles, going nowhere yet spewing noxious fumes that contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and worsening prospects for climate change. If you ask a legislator, say a municipal councilor, how best to solve the problem you can safely wager the answer will be let's make a new law that prohibits idling.
It occurs to me that the revealed pattern is a variation on the old joke about a down and out drunk looking for something late at night by the curbside. A sober gentlewoman happens by and sees the poor fellow on his knees under a streetlight. She asks with genuine concern "what is it that your doing good man?" The drunk replies "I'm looking for some coins that I must have dropped." Without aforethought the woman says "Well where do you think you dropped them?" Also without much thought, the drunk answers, his arm extended and his finger pointing to the other side of the street "Over there." Surprised the woman says "Why then are you looking here?" Perhaps you know the punchline: "Well this is where the light is".
Ah yes, looking where the light is, is a familiar pattern. But it is not that clever a strategy, and we may frankly conclude it is rarely an effective strategy.
My thesis is that while the solution the law makers offer was bound to be anticipated, it is a wrong headed solution, and indeed no solution of any consequence. It is looking for a solution where the light shines. Municipal councilors have few tools available to them, bylaw making being the obvious one. But merely because the law making option is open to them does not mean that law making is an appropriate solution.
In a general way I argue that legislative solutions (read: New Laws), and especially laws of prohibition to influence or control human behaviour are almost always misguided and ineffective, if not counterproductive. Perhaps more importantly, laws of prohibition invariably have unintended consequences that undo any benefits the new law might have yielded. More on this later.
Admittedly there are some citizens who would readily and promptly change their behaviour because the law makers have prohibited something that was their habit to do. And one may also imagine that the number of these citizens who would change their behaviour to conform to the new law increases with the increase in enforcement resources, and an increase in penalties for noncompliance.
But where the enforcement plan is modest or minimal, and where the penalties are not especially onerous, law makers ought not to expect much uptake by the citizenry. The behavioural changes will tend to be equally modest or minimal.
And what about the unintended consequences? For openers, it is quite likely that a whole new group of law breakers has been created. These people may have been good law abiding folk before the new law, but once the prohibition comes into effect, for those that don't immediately change their behaviour, they have now become violators, or scofflaws. And absent extraordinary enforcement of the new law, most of these law breakers will simply continue their now illegal conduct.
Worse yet, there is a real chance that some of these otherwise good folk will lose some respect for the Law. And when that happens, it is to be observed at once that this is a bad thing in the larger societal context. Our society functions as well as it does in no small way because there is widespread respect for our laws. It does not take a superior imagination to appreciate that when a society has widespread disrespect for its Laws, that society is headed in a wrong direction.
So a question emerges; if a new law of prohibition is not an effective way to change people's behaviour, what alternatives might be preferred?
The better path for my money might loosely be called 'advocacy'. Others might call it 'education'. In other contexts it has been called 'jawboning'. This option can allow legislators and do-gooders to join forces in an effort to modify human behaviour towards socially desirable outcomes. But these efforts do not invoke the power or force of the Law, including all the of the government's arsenal of sanctions - fines, or in default of payment confiscation of property or potentially even jail.
Felicitously, in our own times, and in our own communities, we have a real world example of a staggeringly effective 'advocacy' program to promote behavioural change on a rather grand scale. It is the Blue Box recycling program. The buy-in of citizens is quite remarkable. Not perfect mind you, but overwhelming in the proportion of folk who make recycling with the blue boxes a normal part of their quotidian pattern.
Developing the blue box program to get to its present state has been a relatively long process, measured in years if not decades. It has been a program that has taken considerable public resources, funded of course through compulsory taxation. But the program has never had the force of law as a backstop to compel compliance. No law breakers were instantly created. No judicial resources have been expended to deal with those who would not comply, nor for that matter to deal with challenges to the legality of the program. No work has been created for enforcement personnel, nor for lawyers. No freedom of individuals has been impinged. Yet who would deny that the program works well.
It may be that had the blue box program been legislated into being, rather than made optional, the change in behaviour might have occurred more readily, that is at a quicker pace. But that gain would have come at a cost, a cost that I judge too much. The primary cost as I see it is the restriction on the liberty of the individual. While it may be somewhat trivial to connect compulsory blue box participation with state sanctioned restricted individual freedom, I hold that the general principle applies.
Governments, be they at the federal, provincial or municipal level, ought to take the approach least intrusive to individual freedom. Allow individuals to make their own choices. Treat adults as adults, not as children who must 'do as they're told'. Give individuals encouragement to change their behaviour, and by all means use public resources to educate and inform, and even provide incentives.
Can you see a pattern developing?
Now take the concern of idling motor vehicles, going nowhere yet spewing noxious fumes that contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and worsening prospects for climate change. If you ask a legislator, say a municipal councilor, how best to solve the problem you can safely wager the answer will be let's make a new law that prohibits idling.
It occurs to me that the revealed pattern is a variation on the old joke about a down and out drunk looking for something late at night by the curbside. A sober gentlewoman happens by and sees the poor fellow on his knees under a streetlight. She asks with genuine concern "what is it that your doing good man?" The drunk replies "I'm looking for some coins that I must have dropped." Without aforethought the woman says "Well where do you think you dropped them?" Also without much thought, the drunk answers, his arm extended and his finger pointing to the other side of the street "Over there." Surprised the woman says "Why then are you looking here?" Perhaps you know the punchline: "Well this is where the light is".
Ah yes, looking where the light is, is a familiar pattern. But it is not that clever a strategy, and we may frankly conclude it is rarely an effective strategy.
My thesis is that while the solution the law makers offer was bound to be anticipated, it is a wrong headed solution, and indeed no solution of any consequence. It is looking for a solution where the light shines. Municipal councilors have few tools available to them, bylaw making being the obvious one. But merely because the law making option is open to them does not mean that law making is an appropriate solution.
In a general way I argue that legislative solutions (read: New Laws), and especially laws of prohibition to influence or control human behaviour are almost always misguided and ineffective, if not counterproductive. Perhaps more importantly, laws of prohibition invariably have unintended consequences that undo any benefits the new law might have yielded. More on this later.
Admittedly there are some citizens who would readily and promptly change their behaviour because the law makers have prohibited something that was their habit to do. And one may also imagine that the number of these citizens who would change their behaviour to conform to the new law increases with the increase in enforcement resources, and an increase in penalties for noncompliance.
But where the enforcement plan is modest or minimal, and where the penalties are not especially onerous, law makers ought not to expect much uptake by the citizenry. The behavioural changes will tend to be equally modest or minimal.
And what about the unintended consequences? For openers, it is quite likely that a whole new group of law breakers has been created. These people may have been good law abiding folk before the new law, but once the prohibition comes into effect, for those that don't immediately change their behaviour, they have now become violators, or scofflaws. And absent extraordinary enforcement of the new law, most of these law breakers will simply continue their now illegal conduct.
Worse yet, there is a real chance that some of these otherwise good folk will lose some respect for the Law. And when that happens, it is to be observed at once that this is a bad thing in the larger societal context. Our society functions as well as it does in no small way because there is widespread respect for our laws. It does not take a superior imagination to appreciate that when a society has widespread disrespect for its Laws, that society is headed in a wrong direction.
So a question emerges; if a new law of prohibition is not an effective way to change people's behaviour, what alternatives might be preferred?
The better path for my money might loosely be called 'advocacy'. Others might call it 'education'. In other contexts it has been called 'jawboning'. This option can allow legislators and do-gooders to join forces in an effort to modify human behaviour towards socially desirable outcomes. But these efforts do not invoke the power or force of the Law, including all the of the government's arsenal of sanctions - fines, or in default of payment confiscation of property or potentially even jail.
Felicitously, in our own times, and in our own communities, we have a real world example of a staggeringly effective 'advocacy' program to promote behavioural change on a rather grand scale. It is the Blue Box recycling program. The buy-in of citizens is quite remarkable. Not perfect mind you, but overwhelming in the proportion of folk who make recycling with the blue boxes a normal part of their quotidian pattern.
Developing the blue box program to get to its present state has been a relatively long process, measured in years if not decades. It has been a program that has taken considerable public resources, funded of course through compulsory taxation. But the program has never had the force of law as a backstop to compel compliance. No law breakers were instantly created. No judicial resources have been expended to deal with those who would not comply, nor for that matter to deal with challenges to the legality of the program. No work has been created for enforcement personnel, nor for lawyers. No freedom of individuals has been impinged. Yet who would deny that the program works well.
It may be that had the blue box program been legislated into being, rather than made optional, the change in behaviour might have occurred more readily, that is at a quicker pace. But that gain would have come at a cost, a cost that I judge too much. The primary cost as I see it is the restriction on the liberty of the individual. While it may be somewhat trivial to connect compulsory blue box participation with state sanctioned restricted individual freedom, I hold that the general principle applies.
Governments, be they at the federal, provincial or municipal level, ought to take the approach least intrusive to individual freedom. Allow individuals to make their own choices. Treat adults as adults, not as children who must 'do as they're told'. Give individuals encouragement to change their behaviour, and by all means use public resources to educate and inform, and even provide incentives.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Christmas Gift Exchange
Wally is the kind of fellow that would appropriately be on my Christmas card list. Our relationship had a bunch of dimensions. I had been his customer, he had been a customer of mine, and we had shared a few social occasions over the last couple of years.
So when mid December came around, and I pulled out a store of Christmas cards, Wally came easily to mind as a recipient. There was one minor obstacle though. Somehow my contact info for him lacked a home address. And since he was not a landline subscriber the phone directories were of no use. Ditto for the online directories. So the card got prepared, but the envelope only showed a name and no address.
In due course the cards I had completed got sent out by post. A handful though, being without addresses, were going to be delivered personally. And so it was that on Christmas eve afternoon, I was driving around finishing up the chore of getting all the cards to their proper places.
The last to be delivered was Wally's. When I arrived at his place I noticed that his vehicle was in the drive. But I had no real intention of stopping in. There were too many items unfinished on my list, and this would have to be a drop and run.
Not seeing a mail box I figured it would be best simply to put it between the storm door and the main entrance door. And that's what I did. But on opening the screen door, I saw that someone else had had a similar idea. There, between the doors, was a nicely decorated gift bag with a wrapped parcel neatly tucked inside.
In that transitory moment, and without any conscious reasoning, I simply slipped the envelope into the gift bag, and closed the screen door. The mischievous part of me wondered if that would cause him any confusion. And as I was driving home, I thought to myself that I could really have messed him up if I had found another card in the gift bag, and had spirited it away, if only temporarily.
Well it wasn't 2 hours later that my doorbell rang, and who should be standing there but Wally and Marilyn. And they were bearing some wrapped parcels. This set my head into overdrive in a flash. The coincidence in timing was too great too ignore. Had Wally come by with gifts triggered by getting a gift himself, which he figured had come from me?
Sure enough that had been the trigger. Turns out the gift bag did not have a card with it, apart from mine. After reading my card, and being a bit perplexed, he later noticed that the bag itself had a small tag on it showing just the names of some niece and nephew of his. Now he was truly confused.
But to be on the safe side he hastily scrounged around for a reciprocal gift for me and drove over to my place.
Well when our stories were exchanged, a good laugh was had by all. But it occurred to me that the symmetry was incomplete. I still had no gift for him. That was soon cured with a run to the back room fridge where I was keeping a number of Christmas hams that I had been encouraged to buy to support a local fraternal outfit.
And there is how our cultural values express themselves when it comes to gift giving at this festive season.
So when mid December came around, and I pulled out a store of Christmas cards, Wally came easily to mind as a recipient. There was one minor obstacle though. Somehow my contact info for him lacked a home address. And since he was not a landline subscriber the phone directories were of no use. Ditto for the online directories. So the card got prepared, but the envelope only showed a name and no address.
In due course the cards I had completed got sent out by post. A handful though, being without addresses, were going to be delivered personally. And so it was that on Christmas eve afternoon, I was driving around finishing up the chore of getting all the cards to their proper places.
The last to be delivered was Wally's. When I arrived at his place I noticed that his vehicle was in the drive. But I had no real intention of stopping in. There were too many items unfinished on my list, and this would have to be a drop and run.
Not seeing a mail box I figured it would be best simply to put it between the storm door and the main entrance door. And that's what I did. But on opening the screen door, I saw that someone else had had a similar idea. There, between the doors, was a nicely decorated gift bag with a wrapped parcel neatly tucked inside.
In that transitory moment, and without any conscious reasoning, I simply slipped the envelope into the gift bag, and closed the screen door. The mischievous part of me wondered if that would cause him any confusion. And as I was driving home, I thought to myself that I could really have messed him up if I had found another card in the gift bag, and had spirited it away, if only temporarily.
Well it wasn't 2 hours later that my doorbell rang, and who should be standing there but Wally and Marilyn. And they were bearing some wrapped parcels. This set my head into overdrive in a flash. The coincidence in timing was too great too ignore. Had Wally come by with gifts triggered by getting a gift himself, which he figured had come from me?
Sure enough that had been the trigger. Turns out the gift bag did not have a card with it, apart from mine. After reading my card, and being a bit perplexed, he later noticed that the bag itself had a small tag on it showing just the names of some niece and nephew of his. Now he was truly confused.
But to be on the safe side he hastily scrounged around for a reciprocal gift for me and drove over to my place.
Well when our stories were exchanged, a good laugh was had by all. But it occurred to me that the symmetry was incomplete. I still had no gift for him. That was soon cured with a run to the back room fridge where I was keeping a number of Christmas hams that I had been encouraged to buy to support a local fraternal outfit.
And there is how our cultural values express themselves when it comes to gift giving at this festive season.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Trading Enigma
Today I heard about two nations who were consummating a trade long in the works.
The units of trade, while out of the ordinary, were not what got my attention.
Rather it was the valuations reflected by the figures that sucked me in.
Side A was giving up 1 unit, a benefit to side B.
Side B was giving up some 700+ units, a benefit to side A.
What kind of mental ciphering would lead to that kind of trade? I wondered.
I probably will never know.
Just as surprising to me
was the lack of any commentary by the radio journalist who reported the story.
She dutifully recited the figures, and the physical protocols of the trade.
But by then her 28 seconds of air time were up.
All were left to wonder about the behind the scenes negotiations and
the motives of the negotiators.
Surely the optics of a 700+ :1 ratio would pique an enquiring mind.
Were journalists not required to anticipate what listeners were thinking,
and respond to the most likely presumed questions?
Apparently not in this case.
So you're asking 'what was it that was traded? what were these 'units'?
Anticipating that question I say:
Prisoners, that's what. Humanbeans beings.
The State of Israel gave up 700 Palestinian prisoners
in return for the Palestinians giving up 1 Israeli prisoner.
Don't be getting off-topic by asking 'does that imply that Palestine is a 'nation'?
Because I won't be answering that.
I'd rather focus on the 700:1 thing.
You'd think the Jews got jewed. (no letters please)
But no. No one held a gun to their head, if you know what I mean.
Not for this particular, isolated event.
This nation state of Jews have a very lonnng and admirable history
of being astute bargainers.
I don't imagine there was any lapse here.
Still it is hard to figure.
And the Palestinians are obviously no slouches in the negotiating game.
They knew how to lever whatever it was that they were levering.
I've heard of 2 for one specials, even 3 for one, once.
But 700:1. That's a new record for me.
What were all of them thinking?
(new sign off line for a series of columns, hmmmm.....)
And if you get that one figured out,
don't be shy to comment on whether the journalist let us all down
by not addressing, however obliquely, the issue of the 700:1.
The units of trade, while out of the ordinary, were not what got my attention.
Rather it was the valuations reflected by the figures that sucked me in.
Side A was giving up 1 unit, a benefit to side B.
Side B was giving up some 700+ units, a benefit to side A.
What kind of mental ciphering would lead to that kind of trade? I wondered.
I probably will never know.
Just as surprising to me
was the lack of any commentary by the radio journalist who reported the story.
She dutifully recited the figures, and the physical protocols of the trade.
But by then her 28 seconds of air time were up.
All were left to wonder about the behind the scenes negotiations and
the motives of the negotiators.
Surely the optics of a 700+ :1 ratio would pique an enquiring mind.
Were journalists not required to anticipate what listeners were thinking,
and respond to the most likely presumed questions?
Apparently not in this case.
So you're asking 'what was it that was traded? what were these 'units'?
Anticipating that question I say:
Prisoners, that's what. Human
The State of Israel gave up 700 Palestinian prisoners
in return for the Palestinians giving up 1 Israeli prisoner.
Don't be getting off-topic by asking 'does that imply that Palestine is a 'nation'?
Because I won't be answering that.
I'd rather focus on the 700:1 thing.
You'd think the Jews got jewed. (no letters please)
But no. No one held a gun to their head, if you know what I mean.
Not for this particular, isolated event.
This nation state of Jews have a very lonnng and admirable history
of being astute bargainers.
I don't imagine there was any lapse here.
Still it is hard to figure.
And the Palestinians are obviously no slouches in the negotiating game.
They knew how to lever whatever it was that they were levering.
I've heard of 2 for one specials, even 3 for one, once.
But 700:1. That's a new record for me.
What were all of them thinking?
(new sign off line for a series of columns, hmmmm.....)
And if you get that one figured out,
don't be shy to comment on whether the journalist let us all down
by not addressing, however obliquely, the issue of the 700:1.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
2nd hand Career Advice
"Young People:
You have come here for an education.
An educated person is a person who by the age of 21 has developed a theory of what constitutes a satisfying life and significant life.
This theory should be consonant and consistent with the history of humankind and the great thinkers that have gone before.
And an educated person is one who by the age of 25 has developed a plan or course of action to implement their theory, to move towards a satisfying and significant life.
Now
if that person has attained those ages and
has not developed a theory or planned and moved towards implementing it,
then that person
is a fool,
an ignoramus and
probably dangerous."
Wow - what a prescription. What a concluding condemnation.
I delight in it.
And now some context.
The words are mostly not mine.
But I tried as best I could to be faithful to what I understand the original to be.
The original was composed about 1902.
By the then President of the University of Chicago - if my memory holds.
To the entering class that year, seated about an auditorium.
I first read the words in Montreal in 1976.
I was a Project Analyst in the Strategic Projects Group, Headquarters of Canadian National - a diversified conglomerate - trains hotels marine telecommunications.
Half my job was to scan/read periodicals by the bucketful.
One publication I often read was Vital Speeches of the Day.
And one issue was the speech of some military type guy - (Brig. Gen'l?) that had as a theme education.
And the story was told of this turn of the 20th century (1902) University president giving this incredible 60 second address to a throng of frosh.
That was his entire appearance - enter, give a minute long speech, and exit.
And for 35 years now
I have kept that speech in my mind
cuz I thought it so profound and helpful.
You may be curious whether in all those years
I developed a theory
and a plan
for a S&S life.
Not completely, so perhaps I'm a fool.
But hardly dangerous.
But I have given it plenty of thought,
and narrowed the many choices to a few
and rejected plenty of others.
And it is with that in mind that
I presume to scribble (or keyboard equivalent)
some of the notions I've taken a fancy to,
which may loosely qualify as components of My Theory.
To serve is to be content.
True service is an example of love. Love (admittedly a confusing word) is good.
Keep a special respect for Nature and her ways. You are part of Nature.
Biology, the study of living things from microbes to humans, informs us that living things follow certain patterns as a routine. Best to be mindful of these biological imperatives for self and other living things.
Our mission is to move towards accelerating evolution.
Natural systems, starting with the cosmos, evolve.
You are a part of natural systems.
Consider the direction of evolution for the cosmos, and for our species.
Consider making choices consistent with those evolutionary directions.
Community is important and deserves to be supported and nurtured.
Consider playing a meaningful role in your communities.
Humans are social creatures. We are not designed/evolved to go it alone.
We grow best in communities.
You have come here for an education.
An educated person is a person who by the age of 21 has developed a theory of what constitutes a satisfying life and significant life.
This theory should be consonant and consistent with the history of humankind and the great thinkers that have gone before.
And an educated person is one who by the age of 25 has developed a plan or course of action to implement their theory, to move towards a satisfying and significant life.
Now
if that person has attained those ages and
has not developed a theory or planned and moved towards implementing it,
then that person
is a fool,
an ignoramus and
probably dangerous."
Wow - what a prescription. What a concluding condemnation.
I delight in it.
And now some context.
The words are mostly not mine.
But I tried as best I could to be faithful to what I understand the original to be.
The original was composed about 1902.
By the then President of the University of Chicago - if my memory holds.
To the entering class that year, seated about an auditorium.
I first read the words in Montreal in 1976.
I was a Project Analyst in the Strategic Projects Group, Headquarters of Canadian National - a diversified conglomerate - trains hotels marine telecommunications.
Half my job was to scan/read periodicals by the bucketful.
One publication I often read was Vital Speeches of the Day.
And one issue was the speech of some military type guy - (Brig. Gen'l?) that had as a theme education.
And the story was told of this turn of the 20th century (1902) University president giving this incredible 60 second address to a throng of frosh.
That was his entire appearance - enter, give a minute long speech, and exit.
And for 35 years now
I have kept that speech in my mind
cuz I thought it so profound and helpful.
You may be curious whether in all those years
I developed a theory
and a plan
for a S&S life.
Not completely, so perhaps I'm a fool.
But hardly dangerous.
But I have given it plenty of thought,
and narrowed the many choices to a few
and rejected plenty of others.
And it is with that in mind that
I presume to scribble (or keyboard equivalent)
some of the notions I've taken a fancy to,
which may loosely qualify as components of My Theory.
To serve is to be content.
True service is an example of love. Love (admittedly a confusing word) is good.
Keep a special respect for Nature and her ways. You are part of Nature.
Biology, the study of living things from microbes to humans, informs us that living things follow certain patterns as a routine. Best to be mindful of these biological imperatives for self and other living things.
Our mission is to move towards accelerating evolution.
Natural systems, starting with the cosmos, evolve.
You are a part of natural systems.
Consider the direction of evolution for the cosmos, and for our species.
Consider making choices consistent with those evolutionary directions.
Community is important and deserves to be supported and nurtured.
Consider playing a meaningful role in your communities.
Humans are social creatures. We are not designed/evolved to go it alone.
We grow best in communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)