The Nutshell

Sir, I sympathize with your arthritic cranial burses (have you tried Bengay?). This condition undoubtedly is responsible for your inability to appreciate my extremely literal and explicit exposition of the various Nutshelliana. In fact I do try very hard to be as clear as possible but it is possible that occasionally I fail due to my trying equally hard to be concise and economical of verbiage (in which I know I fail). I do acknowledge that much funny stuff occurs - at least theoretically - on multidimensional branes, stuff we can't wrap our heads around even though we can prove theorems about. The Nutshell doctrine is only warranted for up to four dimensions. If it turns out that it can be disproved in the fifth or sixth or n-th dimension - so be it. I shall not loose any sleep over it. On the other hand, I am flattered by your elevated regard for the Nutshell rhetoric. To the best of my knowledge you read it here first. As for your paraphrase, I would only replace the words "norm in" with the words "necessity of". Thanks for the suggestion for a Nutshell on thermodynamics of faith. - the Ed

Quiz: Are you hero material?

1. The world is about to be destroyed along with all of mankind. You are the only one able to save it by jumping into an erupting volcano. What do you do?

2. Chances are 50/50 that the world will be destroyed along with all of mankind. You are the only one who can reduce that chance to zero by jumping into an erupting volcano. What do you do?

3. The world is about to be destroyed along with all of mankind. You are one of the only two people able to save it by jumping into an erupting volcano, the other one being a beautiful young virgin. What do you do?

4. The world is about to be destroyed along with all of mankind. You are one of the only two people able to save it by jumping into an erupting volcano, the other one being your ugly evil stepmother. What do you do?

5. The world is about to be destroyed along with all of mankind. It can only be saved by tossing a sufficient number of citizens into an erupting volcano. You are big and strong. What do you do?

6. Chances are 50/50 that the world will be destroyed along with all of mankind. You are the only one who may be able to reduce that chance to zero by jumping into an erupting volcano but chances of successs are only 50/50. What do you do?

7. The world is about to be destroyed along with all of mankind except for you, a beautiful young virgin (or a handsome young man) and a square mile of choice real estate complete with flora and fauna. You are the only one who can save the world by jumping into an erupting volcano. What do you do?

E-mail the answers to thenutshell@verizon.net to find out if you're hero material.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/24/09 (#0551) Some comments on Anthony Burgess's explication of James Joyce's take on Thomas Aquinas's theory of beauty

Curb your enthusiasm. As thrilling as the title sounds, this Nutshell is actually a sober critique of a serious linguistic problem. So settle down and pay attention. And kindly stop tittering in the back row.

I am dutifully reading James Joyce (I feel obliged to read at least some of his stuff before I die) and not enjoying it much. I will no doubt have something to say about that in some future Nutshell but today's topic is language as a tool for confusion. (Full disclosure: I have a touch of Asperger's so anything not explicit, literal and strictly grammatical often goes right over my head. Metaphors are usually lost on me but I do dig irony).

Thomas Aquinas had a theory about the nature of beauty (inspired by his reading of Aristotle). He wrote "pulcra sunt quae visa placent" (meaning roughly "that is beautiful which pleases apprehension") and "ad pulcritudinem tria requiruntur, integras, consonantia, claritas". Joyce translated the latter as "three things are needed for beauty: wholeness, harmony and radiance". Then he explained at considerable length what he, Joyce, meant by "wholeness", "harmony" and "radiance". Based on his explanations, the Nutshell's more rational choice of terms would be, respectively, "distinct individuality", "a structure optimally balancing order and chaos" and "a unique quality as an organic whole". Right there you see the problem - people use words which really mean nothing until laboriously (and not always clearly) explained. The Nutshell's choice is both more accurate and more precise. Best of all, it requires no complicated exegesis - the meanings of the words used can be looked up in any standard dictionary. And it avoids much of the confusion created by incidental, irrelevant and misleading associations carried by both Aquinas's and Joyce's chosen terms.

Enter Mr. Burgess hoping to clarify Joyce. He paraphrases Joyce/Aquinas thus: "three prerequisites for beauty are integrity, symmetry and radiance". Whoa! What's with the "prerequisites"? That implies you need these things before you can have beauty, but not necessarily that they are in themselves aspects of beauty which is what Aquinas and Joyce seem to be saying. The word "prerequisites" is confusing. Later in the same paragraph, Burgess refers to the three "prerequisites" as "stages" in the process of apprehension of beauty.

This may seem a minor quibble but it isn't, at least not for me. I hit a word like "prerequisites" and I come to a full stop trying to comprehend what Burgess is telling me. It turns out he isn't telling me anything, he's just confusing the picture. I have to take time to sort out the sense of what he's trying to tell me for myself. I run into this kind of sloppy use of language again and again and it costs me unnecessary, frustrating and time consuming intelectual detours to puzzle out the author's meaning. Sometimes I never do get it and just have to move on, confused, hoping something further on in the text will throw light on what the author intended. All too often my hopes are dashed.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/22/09 (#0550) Mystic mysteries

The universe is a mysterious place and there's enough we don't know about it to give imagination free rein. Possibilities for speculation are endlessly entertaining which is why I love good sci-fi yarn with a cosmologico-philosophical bend to it. (Curiously hard to find these days - if you have read a good one recently let me know).

But there is a serious side to speculation about the mysteries of the universe. Like it or not, the nature of the Unknown may be of critical importance to our present or our future. Optimists are hopeful, pessimists are fearful. No one capable of reflective thought can maintain a neutral stance in face of the Unknown. Many philosophers, theologians and scientists are thinking deeply about what kind of boundaries there may be to define what is Possible. There may not be any.

Naturally, the Nutshell is not ignoring this fascinating field of inquiry. Of the two possible theories of the Universe (one postulating that it has a purpose and the other that it doesn't) only one offers a necessary limit to the Possible. In a purposeful universe the Possible is limited by the necessity to serve the Purpose, either directly or indirectly but ultimately always. (Actually, in any orderly universe that is evolving in accordance with apparently immutable rules, such rules constitute a local purpose or intentionality. But, of course, in an essentially purposeless universe such rules are subject to change without notice so anything is possible.)

As MFRs well know, the Nutshell doctrine is that the purpose of the Universe is the experience of joy of being. This justifies the optimists in their hopes. However, pessimists have grounds for fear as well. The road to joy is beset with pitfalls and difficulties and failures are many. Why? Because joy is the result of a dynamic balance between order and chaos. It must be possible for one or the other to prevail temporarily. Also errors are unavoidable. Unfortunately, there is no other way. Even though the Unknown has to be ultimately joy-friendly and cannot be intrinsically hostile, it may well be locally and temporarily dangerous, even lethal. Especially to scoffers, skeptics and know-it-alls. At least in the better sci-fi stories.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/21/09 (#0549) Settling for enough

Is this all there is? At this particular point in time and space, yes. This is it, such as it is. Usually it is more than enough (since we are reasonably well adapted to our environment) but it is possible that something essential may be missing. It is also possible that it may be way too much.

There is a minority of maladapted humans who find the world as it is to be already too much. But most of us want more (without necessarily being clear about what it is we want more of). We feel ourselves full of unrealized potential for joy so, for better or worse, we proceed to rearrange the world closer to our heart's desire. Not infrequently we succeed, at least partially (often discovering that what we thought we wanted isn't it) but this only fuels our desire for still more. Hence socio-economic progress and all it entails.

There is also a small minority among us who are willing to accept the given world just as it is. These folk come in two varieties: the conservatives who merely fear that any change is likely to be for the worse, and those who are fully engaged with the present and find themselves fulfilled. The former try to hang onto the status quo, the latter go with the flow of the natural evolution of the present (which is where we live) savoring and appreciating it to the fullest.

Now it is possible for the present moment to become a threat to life and limb, lacking conditions or resources needed to support human life. Those fully engaged in the present are in a position to see this coming and to respond appropriately. For them it is not so much a matter of rearranging the world as of remaining in harmony with it. Their objective is not just avoidance of danger or deprivation but of excess as well. They tend to live long and well.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/20/09 (#0548) Stop trying to confuse me with facts

Right you are. The problem with facts is that they are neither Truth nor Reality. They are merely reports of what somebody thought they saw, heard or otherwise experienced at some time in the past. Even if the experiencer is myself, there's a limit to how far I am prepared to trust my own senses and my own memory. All facts must be necessarily taken with a grain of salt, especialy when reported by others whose objectivity, ability to recall and language skills are in question. Nevertheless, facts are ignored at our peril - they are the smoke originating in the Reality's fire.

So what's a rational person to do? Well. if we collect enough facts to be statistically significant they begin to suggest what the actual reality of Reality might be like. By now humanity has enough facts in its archives to make possible some pretty reliable assumptions about how some aspects of Reality behave and evolve. Of course, we're limited by our point of view so the Whole Thing inevitably eludes us. But we've got some major bits and pieces just about nailed down, the very existence of this blog being one indisputable evidence of that fact.

(Incidentally, the reality of Reality seems to be quite strange. For one, Reality does not seem to exist in its own right, only in the facts cumulatively suggesting its nature. But that's another story.)

Here is the problem. Being able to manipulate Reality can be fun but it's no guarantee of happiness (precisely defined here as "feeling good"). Since happy is what we want to be, what good are facts? We can argue, convincingly, I believe, that while facts clearly are not sufficient for happiness they may well be necessary. I am absolutely opposed to the view held by some that happiness is an illusion which is destroyed by facts. These pathetic souls are faced with the dilemma: is it better to be happy than to be right, or vice versa?

The Nutshell doctrine tells us that Reality and happiness are not only not incompatible but that happiness is the very object of Reality. Of course, that is purely a matter of faith but then so is the opposite view and as long as we must believe something it makes sense to believe in something hopeful and proven to be actually productive of happiness. There is one other advantage to the belief in the essential oneness of Realty and happiness and it's huge: we, the believers, can be both happy and right and we can't be confused by facts.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/18/09 (#0547) In praise of people

Granted, we have our greedy rich, our religious assassins and other assorted psychopaths polluting the human society. But they are merely that: a pollution, not the substance of the humankind. In this Nutshell I want to express my appreciation and gratitude to all the wise and good people who:

     a) worked hard and well to design and build the house I am comfortably living in;
     b) work diligently and effectively to produce and bring into my home the electricity which not merely makes my life easy but possible;
     c) every month miraculously deposit amounts of legal tender into my bank account; and keep track of it for me;
     d) designed and manufactured my fast, reliable and comfortable transportation vehicle; and continue to supply fuel and maintenance service for it;
     e) built the good roads that take me all over the world; and the magnificent cities and all their entertainments;
     e) work to produce the delicious food I eat in large quantities and to bring unlimited quantities of good drinking water to my tap;
     f) design and make the clothes I wear, the appliances I use, the piano I play, the camera I use and all the accessories;
     g) produce movies, books, works of art, feats of skill and imagination that fascinate, inform and entertain me;
     h) etc. etc.

I could obviously go on and on but you get the idea. The enormity of people's contribution to my well being could only come about through their wisdom and goodness. These are not the fruits of ignorance and ill will, these are the fruits of, to paraphrase a good and wise friend of mine, "discernment of what needs to be done, desire to do it, and finding an effective way". In other words, wisdom and goodness.

I have to conclude that wisdom and goodness are prevalent among the people of the country where I live so well by the collective labor of the entire society. Such moral and intellectual idiots as are among us may be a drag but evidently not an insurmountable impediment.

"Ah but" you say "your 'wise and good' people couldn't care less about your needs - what actually motivates them is their desire for money." Absolutely wrong. What people desire is to feel good . Money is merely a convenient means for the exchange of value (i.e. that which makes us feel good). It boils down to value for value. And to produce value you need discernment, desire and intelligence.

Of course, the chaos necessarily involved in all intentional action makes for unavoidable inefficiency, waste and excess. And that's how I am able to live like a king: by scavenging the detritus of our civilization, an immense store of free or nearly free value. But that's another story. Free or not, I appreciate deeply the wisdom and goodness that went into the creation of the abundant value in my life.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/15/09 (#0546) The piano and I (a progress report)

Mozart could imagine entire musical scores in his head, in full detail. He only needed to hear a piece of music once to be able to write it down exactly as he heard it. And, of course, he only needed to glance at a page of sheet music to be able to hear it fully realized in his mind. Mozart was exceptionally talented though hardly unique. Most talented musicians are able to read music fluently from the page and hear it immediately in their minds. Conversely, they can immediately play the music they hear in their mind on whichever musical instrument they have mastered.

I am not a talented musician. Anti-talented is more like it.

Yes, I can read music. Very slowly but that hardly matters in my case. I can't hear the music at all - I can only read the notes. Intellectually I know D is higher than C and I know the difference between C and G is bigger than between C and D but I can not hear any of this in my mind. I can name most chords if I see them written down. If I hear a chord I might recognize it as major or minor but that's about it. No doubt I could train myself to recognize various musical intervals and chords when I hear them but this would be akin to intense physical therapy to overcome a serious disability. It would be painful, exhausting and take a long time.

Here is the way I learn to play a piece on the piano. With rare exceptions I choose a piece of music that is familiar to me, one that has made an impression on me, one that I have heard often enough to have absorbed its musical sense. In some cases I may even be able to sing it if not quite in tune. Next I get the sheet music for it - I can't reproduce the music from the faulty impression of it in my mind. Then I memorize the notes by rote and practice playing them until I have the fingering indelibly ingrained in my mind. Then I try to make the notes into music. I do know what the music is supposed to sound like, that is, I know when I got it right (some might disagree but that's another story). Getting it right is a matter of practice, practice, practice, practice. Infinite patience and total attention are required. After a long while it comes together. Then it's a matter of training my fingers so that they will play the piece by themselves without my having to give them any attention other than listening to what they are playing. After that I just need to play the piece from time to time to keep my fingers from forgetting it.

Is all this tedious and patient labor worth it? You may have your opinion, I have mine.

Until next time,

Paul W.

P.S. I discovered that when I "layer" the Grand Piano sound with the Electronic Piano sound on the CDP-100, the GP bass is hardly affected at all (the EP bass is very soft and dull and disappears behind the GP sound) while the trebles come to life and the sustain is greatly improved across the keyboard. Yay! There is a price to pay, though - some wild notes in the high trebles and less piano-like trebles.

08/14/09 (#0545) The powers that be

As everyone knows, the world is ruled by a secret cabal of super-rich cognoscenti who pull the levers of power from behind the scenes. The governments of the world are all fake facades whose main purpose is to keep the people deceived, pacified and under control by any and all means - whatever works. The real decision makers are invisible. We don't know who they are, how many they are or what their objectives are. All we know is that Obama and Putin are their puppets.

What could possibly be motivating this power elite? Presumably they are human like us. Or maybe not... In any case, they're the only ones who know what really is going on and reap humongous profits off our ignorance. How do they spend all that enormous wealth? What do they do for fun?

Some people believe that the very exercise of their vast power itself provides the Rulers of the World with all the kicks they need. They don't need any other entertainment. Besides, they're too busy. But that seems silly. Then, again, I'm not one of them so what do I know? If they are aliens, as some suspect, they may have a totally different and inhuman value system. Whatever it is, total destruction of humankind can't be their intent - they've already missed too many opportunities and the world population continues to grow. Obviously, though, neither can the general prosperity of mankind be their principal goal. So what do they want? Where are they taking us?

I suppose we'll never know.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/12/09 (#0544) The pleasures and advantages of crying in the wilderness

First and foremost is that you can do it at your leisure. Or whenever the spirit moves you. There's no rush, no pressure. You have all the time you need to do it right.

Secondly, you enjoy absolute freedom of speech. No need to worry about political correctness or social propriety or doctrinal purity or inadvertently offending anyone. You can speak the truth as you see it.

Thirdly, you are not distracted by or inundated with public commentary, critique or correspondence. There are no unruly mobs or hecklers to contend with.

All in all, this makes crying in the wilderness an attractive proposition unless, of course, you are a politician, a lobbyist or a social activist. But for regular prophets and philosophers the wilderness is the ideal venue.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/11/09 (#0543)

(Re: TN #541) It seems to me prayer has to be more than introspection. To discover a Purpose surely we need to see ourselves in the context of our environment? - the Squirrel

P.S. Tallulah Bankhead said: "There is a lot od pain in life but suffering is optional"

As discussed in several previous Nutshells, we enlarge our Self by incorporating our environment into it. To be effective, our introspection must include our largest Self. Hence the need for input from others especially those whom we have made part of our own Self. Note that appreciation is an essential aspect of prayer. - the Ed

In praise of the abnormal

I flatter myself that MFRs surely consider the Nutshell an abnormal phenomenon. They probably would not read it if they didn't think so. After all, normal stuff is overly familiar and boring. Give us the abnormal, the far out, the weird, the unexpected - that's much more interesting!

Being interesting is an intrinsic virtue of the abnormal, but not its only one. Consider that essential seeds of creativity and change necessarily come from the abnormal. If it weren't for the presence of the abnormal, the normal would just tend to carry on indefinitely as the most stable state under the circumstances and life would really get boring.

I will not enter the argument between the conservatives and the progressives whether stability is good or evil. Let me just point out that being normal does not automatically make you good any more than being abnormal automatically makes you evil. Our very best and brightest are all by definition as abnormal as our worst and dumbest.

In any case, besides being boring, normal is fraught with problems (viz. "snafu"). Yes, things could certainly be worse but they could also be a lot better. And where do the solutions to the normal screw ups come from? From the abnormal, natch. It's the abnormal that drives the evolution of the normal into something better. Of course it can also drive it the other way, but this is where our extremely abnormal (in cosmic terms) free will and intentionality come into play. We can decide which way lies "better" and actually tilt the cosmic balance to favor our heart's desire. That's definitely abnormal.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/10/09 (#0542) "Ora et labora"

That is the motto of a monastic order (I forget which one) in the RC Church. "Pray and work".

To those who find prayer difficult or futile and work a punishment, this may well sound offputting (although some who feel compelled to suffer may find it perversely appealing). There is, however, a minority who find prayer refreshing and enlightening and love their work. Indeed, contrary to popular perception, prayer and work are not incompatible with enjoyment of life.

Before proceding further let us define our terms. "Work" is what we do, willingly or unwillingly, because it needs to be done and we can do it. How do we know it needs to be done? Excellent question. Often we are simply told what needs to be done by an Authority whose understanding, we believe, is greater than our own, or whose judgement we feel is really none of our business as long as we are fairly compensated for the work. Ultimately, someone has to decide what needs to be done and for this one needs a Purpose. Work is essentially a purposeful activity. Purposeful activity endows one's life with Meaning which is essential to its enjoyment.

So where do Purposes come from? This is where prayer comes in. My definition of prayer (which probably would not pass Vatican's Office of Doctrinal Correctness) is "self-discovery", that is, recognition, appraisal and appreciation of our own needs, desires, strengths and weaknesses. Such introspection is fraught with potential for self-deception so we need input from others - friends, mentors, shrinks, gurus. Ultimately, though, no one can know us as we know ourselves. From self-knowledge come Purposes - it becomes luminously apparent to us what needs to be done that we can do.

That is the other aspect of work - it must be what we can do, it must be within our capability to carry out successfully. Attempting tasks beyond our strength and skill is a dangerous waste of energy and resources leading to failure, self-damage and possibly self-destruction. On the other hand, work that we can succeed at is a source of satisfaction. But how do we know what we can actually do? I am sure it's not by accident that the motto puts prayer before work.

In the final analysis, "ora et labora" is not a bad basis on which to build an enjoyable life. In fact, it is probably the only effective one. But, as already noted, there are people who are deeply afraid to enjoy life, who insist on suffering. For them prayer is a lament and work is a curse. Their self-knowledge is virtually nil, deliberately so. They need to be saved from themselves. But that's another story.

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/08/08 (#0541)

(Re: TN #538) I am not sure that you can assume that the half-silvered mirror "observes" which way the photon goes. This would certainly be the case under the laws of classical physics but in the quantum world I believe events like an instant change in momentum (as in the case of photon reflection) may be possible without the universe noticing it. - the Squirrel

My point is that "event" (a change in state) is synonymous with "observation". A change in momentum is a change in state and as such necessarily observed by the universe (or some part of it). However, until it is actually detected, a change in momentum can have a virtual "existence" as a quantum probability. As to whether the reflecting mirror can avoid being a detector, I confess my ignorance. But I doubt it. - the Ed

Quo vadimus?

When I was four or so, my father took me to some kind of a scientific exhibit of which I can only remember an impression of darkness and my utter astonishment when a man spoke something in one corner of the room and his voice came loudly out of a box in another corner of the room. Action at a distance without any apparent means of transmission of force! How magical is that?

It was much more magical than the radio which I sort of took for granted except when I heard my mother singing on it (she was a professional singer) which was also pretty amazing.

These days I watch digital HDTV on my 1020p 32" LCD screen with surround sound and I feel the same thrill of amazement. I still find the images on the screen absolutely fascinating - their totally convincing realism, their super-fine, crisp detail. The fact that much of the time the content of these images is commercial crap is irrelevant (actually, some commercials are imaginative works of art well worth watching at least once - though not endlessly repeated). It's the image itself that thrills me. I suppose I will get over this sooner or later but for now I allow myself the full measure of visual delight.

Before the final switch to digital TV last June I only had very bad reception of three channels, one of them PBS (which I would love to receive) and the other two were an infomercial channel and a Christian worship channel, this last one being the only one that was coming in at almost watcheable quality. Since the switch I receive clearly five digital channels: an infomercial channel, a cartoon channel, not one but two worship channels, and the NBC.

PBS (still transmitting in analog) is now totally scrambled, even worse than before. I used to be able to get the audio but that's turned to pure noise now. (I am hoping that PBS will eventually go digital and perhaps I will be able to pick up the signal). For now I have essentially just one "good" channel (NBC). But that is already too much. I find myself too often a captive audience watching stuff I would never go out of my way to watch but because it only takes a click of a button to turn it on, I do.

What amazes me even more than all this technological tour de force is that people in the "developed" countries, such as ours, can find time to live while drowning in the endless ocean of information and entertainment provided by hundreds of TV channels, broadband Internet, computer games, wireless personal communications cum info cum entertainment devices (with their millions of "aps") and, of course, e-mail, blogging, texting and twittering. Surrounded 24/7/365 by this vast chaotic electronic cacophony of our own making, do we have any idea what we're doing and where we're going?

Until next time,

Paul W.

08/06/09 (#0540)

(Re TN #534) I As one who continues the strange dance with numbers after years of being clumsy in this art I applaud the sweet neatness of the Nutshell in its explanation of operations. I make no attempt to begin to comprehend what happened to any of the nine lives belonging to the cat in (#538). Enjoyed the results of the adventure in Innwood. (#536) The trials and travails of Prickles continue to amuse. The trip from champagne to the gutter (#535) will give her rich material for what might be a very Victorian style future autobiography. Not sure I�ve got the reference numbers correct. I shall rely on the editor and refrain from uncouth and truly unrefined expletives as a reaction to my own errors (#537). I�ll save those to hurl at students in class tonight. In appreciation, - TABS

Prickles got all excited about your idea of writing a melodramatic autobiography. She has a bit of a swelled head ever since the champagne incident. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea. Demand for books in Hedgehogese is awfully small. Perhaps she could do it in Latin? You raise a very, um, hairy point re the nine lives of the cat in Schroedinger's experiment. It hadn't occurred to me and I don't know what this does to Quantum Mechanics - I need to think... - the Ed

(Re: TN #539) Are not some men also notorious as Seducers? Why the special connection between seduction and women? - the Squirrel

In general (there are, as you note, exceptions) men are lousy seducers. On the other hand, seduction comes naturally to most women - they have a talent for it. This inequality is not a problem. Rather, it tends to restore and stabilize the balance of power between sexes (even though, in extreme cases, it drives some men berserk). Seductive men upset this balance, invariably to the woman's regret. - the Ed

Final report on CDP-100 digital piano

To begin with, forget about the built-in speakers. I was prepared for this - I had already invested a magnificent sum of $75 in Phillips MMS321 multimedia speakers with total power of 80 watts which is respectable. Indeed, playing this keyboard through these speakers the first impression is of startling realism - it does sound like a six foot concert grand. You wonder where all this sound is coming from.

The devil is in the details. There are several wild notes, especially in the mid-range where most of the music is. These notes are either disproportionately loud and sharp or they tend to sound distorted and buzzy when played loud or both. It takes a very carefully calibrated touch to compensate for these wild notes during playing. However, if you're content to play everything in the pianissimo to piano range there's no problem.

I have commented already in a previous Nutshell on the relatively short sustain of this piano - not a defect but rather a matter of taste and suitability for the music one is most likely to play. With the Phillips speakers the high treble end of the keyboard just about dies. The notes are reduced to mere percussive clunks. In this range the native speakers actually do a much better job - the highest trebles still sing.

Switching from speakers to my pretty good earphones (which give me a satisfyingly full tonal range rendition of music on CDs and MP3 devices) the first thing I noted was that the wild notes were gone . Totally. Wow! The high treble was singing. I even seemed to have more sustain because I could hear better the lingering harmonics. And the bass was still all there. This restored my faith in the keyboard itself. The problem is with the speakers.

Some research on the web quickly established that high fidelity flat response "monitor grade" speakers cost more than the keyboard itself. In fact I could not find anything under $600 that I could have any confidence in especially in view of incomplete or non-existent specs or reviews. An optimal system that would definitely deliver faithfully everything that the keyboard put out would cost about as much as a real piano. But, of course, a real piano in that price range would not sound nearly as good and would take up a hell of a lot more space.

Bottom line: for the price I'm willing to pay, this is as good as it gets.

Until next time,

Paul W.

P.S. The CDP-100 can also fake a pretty good harpsichord with realistic plucking "action" and, no wild notes!.

08/04/09 (#0539)

(Re TN #538) What if you replace the half-silvered mirror in Schroedinger's experiment with a double slit? That removes the mirror as the observer and all possibilities continue to coexist. - the Squirrel

Only until the photon actually arrives somewhere (whether at the photocell or elsewhere). Its arrival constitutes an observation and from that point on there are no alternative possibilities. - the Ed

All about Eve

In Milton's "Paradise Lost" Eve is portrayed as a great housekeeper, gracious hostess, devoted friend and companion, and a luscious nymph. She is also portrayed as the weaker sex, but that was the politically correct line in Milton's and biblical times. Of course, as time went by Eve became a mom, then a matron and finally a hag but in the Bible she only appears as the Edenic nymph. (Curiously, she never was a child but that's another story).

In an earlier Nutshell we considered the various stages in a woman's life (of which there are several as opposed to at most three in a man's life). Today we are concerned only with the stage I call nymphhood. To men this is the most interesting stage and women tend to use all means at their disposal to prolong nymphhood or at least the illusion of it. Which brings us to today's point: the primary objective of the nymph stage is seduction. This is all good and as nature intended and in earlier times it was a necessary part of the mechanism of procreation of the human race.

So it is entirely realistic and appropriate (at least from the male point of view) to see the woman in her nymph stage as the Temptress or Seductress. That's exactly what she is supposed to be and, frankly, we men wouldn't have it any other way (even though we may deny it). An immediate objection may be raised that this ignores the totality of the woman as a human being which extends far beyond the Seductress role, and it is true that virtually all men are guilty of such simplification. But this does not deny the fact that the Seductress is there in every nymph and has to be reckoned with.

It is also a fact that most men fear the Seductress as much as they are attracted to her. In patriarchal societies, seduction is a woman's chief weapon in the war against the assumed male superiority and a very effective one. Hence the subjugation of women by force, force being a man's instinctive response to a perceived threat.

The other problem implicit in a woman's role as the Seductress is the inherent promiscuity of seduction which attracts all comers. This is a two way street. Neither sex can be accused of being more promiscuous than the other (though this is exactly what happens in patriarchal societies with their double standards). In any case, it's a threat to stable intergender relationships and a challenge to male sexual possessiveness. In some patriarchal societies the response is the seraglio, the burka and the "morality" police. In societies where gender equality is at least aspired to, there is the formal institution of marriage as a legal contract to remain faithful to one another, sexually and otherwise. Whether faithfulness can be legislated is another matter. But there are many men and women who actually practice it as a conscious act of free will (a.k.a. love).

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/03/09 (#0538) Shredding the Schroedinger's cat

Good old regular "classical" physics concerns itself with describing as accurately as possible what has happened (that is, what has actually been observed) and coming up with a plausible explanation that hangs together with everything else we think we know about the universe as we experience it.

Not so quantum mechanics. QM, as it is affectionately known, concerns itself only with the posibilities for observation at some future time given the present state of the universe. It lays out these possibilities, assigns (quite precisely) statistical probabilities to each one, and then it just stops. It has absolutely nothing to say about what will actually be observed next. Assuming the same initial conditons, QM can only predict for a sufficiently large number of observations the exact percentages of the various possibilities that can be expected to occur. The actual next observation may be any one of the possibilities permitted by the initial conditions, no matter how unlikely. It's a perfect slot machine.

So, while regular physics deals with events (another word for "observations") QM investigates the mystery of what lies inbetween the events. We call what lies between events states, an event being a change in state. Note that only changes in state may be observed. The states themselves are not observable. Thus QM is the science of the unobservable which some might consider an oxymoron. Yet QM's precise calculations of the odds that of all possible next events a particular one might occur are consequential and useful. A lot of present day technology depends on them.

Given that it deals with the unobservable, how did QM manage to develop as a science to begin with? Curiously, it comes about as a consequence of mathematical descriptions of the observed universe. It is, in fact, a mathematical inference.

QM's paradoxical nature is exemplified by its two most famous puzzles, one real the other imaginary. Both deal with the question "do all possibilities for a change in a given state 'coexist' all at once in that state (along with their assigned probabilities)?". The answer is necessarily "yes" (otherwise the universe would cease to evolve) but it is not clear what "existence" means if it cannot be observed. It's some kind of a suspended, contingent, virtual "existence" totally unlike the existence we experience as patterns of events (observed changes of state).

The two slit experiment

The real puzzle is the well known "two slit" experiment in which photons aimed at a screen have a "choice" of two slits through which they may pass. Provided there is no way to tell which slit the photons actually pass through, what is observed on the screen is a pattern of interference of the probabilities that a photon will pass through one slit or the other. Close one slit (or put a detector at one of the slits to determine whether a photon has actually passed through it or not) and the pattern disappears.

In this experiment, the presence of either two slits or one slit is an aspect of the given intial state of the system. The passage of a photon through the slits is not an event since it is not observed. Effectively it does not happen. What is observed is the emission of a photon and its arrival at the screen. The passage of the photon from its origin to the screen constitutes the sole change in state. There is no change in state involved in the merely presumed passage of the photon through one of the slits. So all possibilities "coexist" until the photon's arrival at the screen and this is made evident by the observed pattern.

The Shroedinger's cat

The imaginary puzzle involves the Shroedinger's cat. Schroedinger was the man who did the math for QM and he was, not surprisingly, puzzled by the results. He expressed his puzzlement by setting up a hypothetical situation where a photon is fired from some source at a photocell which activates a solenoid which pulls the trigger of a gun aimed at a cat. (I'm modifying the details of Schroedinger's set up but not the essence). Between the photon source and the photocell there is a half-silvered semi-translucent mirror. The photon has an equal chance of passing through or being reflected back. The whole apparatus is enclosed in a black, windowless, soundproof box.

A photon is fired and we don't know what happens to it. We can find out by opening the box and looking inside to check whether the cat is dead or alive. But, Schroedinger argues, until that observation is made both possibilities co-exist inside the box: that the photon both did and did not hit the photo cell with both the alternative chains of consequent events also coexisting as possibilities until the change in state is actually observed.

Here is the problem (besides the wanton cruelty to cats). As noted earlier, an "unobserved event" is an oxymoron. If this experiment were actually carried out, the half-silvered mirror would be the principal suspect observer. At the sub-atomic level it would "know" whether a photon bounced off it or went through. There would be a minute disturbance in the electromagnetic and gravitational field, perhaps undetectable to human made instruments but sufficient to constitute an observation. Events do not require human consciousness to be observed else the universe would cease to exist. Everything that happens in the universe is observed by some part of it. The sound of a tree falling in the forest is experienced by a multitude of observers whether a human is present or not. In an actual experiment there would be no superposition of different possibilities in Schroedinger's box. The cat would be either dead or alive. We, humans, just don't happen to know which. But some part of the universe would know.

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/31/09 (#0537) The coarse and the refined

Many social critics have noted that public language and behavior are becoming increasingly coarser in the "Western" society and have been on a downward slide for over a century. And the Western society's global influence is resulting in a comparable trend towards coarsening of speech and manners worldwide.

This phenomenon is most visible among the upper classes. The public life of the lower clases has always been a coarse one. But rather than lifting the lower classes up to the behavior and speech standards of the "better sort of people" as the class conscious Brits would say, it seems the better sort of people are being dragged down to the standard of the lowest common denominator.

Some of this is easily explained. For one, it's always easier to slip down than climb up. For another, with class distinctions disappearing, the tendency is for everyone to meet somewhere in the lower middle. Aristocratic manners give way to bourgeois vulgarity as the default. At the same time, the dregs of the society, the have-nothing-to-loosers, resist refinement partly on account of incapacity and partly as a matter of deliberate rebellion against the rest of the society which they believe is responsible for their low status. Besides, the low lifestyle has a certain attraction to those in society's upper ranks - it seems more visceral, more "real".

Indeed, one positive factor in society's loss of "refinement" is the greater realism and pragmatism of the average citizen's approach to life's challenges. To an increasing extent we are ceasing to pretend to be nicer than we actually are and becoming much more candid. This is good. Before we can improve ourselves first we must be able to be honest with ourselves and with each other. We're not totally there yet but we have come a long way since the Victorians.

Of course "improvement" is a treacherous term. Ultimately we can only trust our own desire to become "better", evaluating our idea of "better" on basis of how it makes us feel about ourselves. We can't live for the approval of others, nor can we trust it. But we can and must co-operate with others to arrive at a consensus about what seems best for the society of which we are dependent members. This just may include a measure of refinement in public speech and manners.

Until next time,

Paul W.

Then for a walk along what looked like a country lane with lush vegetation on both sides. It was hot and humid with a mix of sunshine and rainclouds. I was armed with my camera, a book and an umbrella. Tried to take a few pictures of some more picturesque vegetation but rain started getting serious so beat it back to the main drag and went into the Family Dollar store to wait out the rain. There I discovered some really nice looking frames (with kitschy designs inside them) for as little as $3 apiece. Made note. Browsed through the entire store, found nothing more worth noting but killed another half hour.

With the sun starting to break through the clouds, meandered down (or maybe up) the strip, noting a BBQ shack set up in the parking lot of the pharmacy - possibly a lunch but after the late breakfast I wasn't hungry. Rested a while on a low brick wall near the kid's clothing boutique. The place looked deserted but as I rested an SUV pulled up bearing a mom and two daughters. For some reason I was as pleased as the proprietor of the store must have been. On this note I decided to move on.

Off on what looked like another overgrown country lane but turned out to be an access route to the back of a section of the strip mall. A visual treasure trove! I have long ago learned that it doesn't matter where you are - if you poke around long enough you will find amazing images. Here, at the back of the strip of stores were stashed various discards, general junk and garbage, all of it well weathered and beat up, chaos harmonized by time. I was ecstatic. I spent some indeterminate time shooting the gorgeous abstract images I was presented with. Finally, sated, I rested in a quite comfortable upholstered armchair conveniently discarded in a shady spot and opened my book.

Then I heard an unearthly sound which I could not identify. It grew rapidly in power until the world shook. Was this the Gabriel's horn? Had the end of the world began? I was seriously entertaining this possibility when above me through the humid haze a mighty aircraft hove into view and quickly disappeared into a bank of mist. I saw it just long enough to recognize it as a C-5, a huge transport plane, one of several stationed at the USAF airport.

I read for some time - it was an engrossing book - and it was time to move on. As I got up I noticed a weed valiantly pushing through the decaying concrete. I honored it with a shot and was on my way.

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/24/09 (#0535) Hedgehog dialogs XIII

Prickles, the hedgehog I live with, insists on traveling with me everywhere (with mixed results - she once got lost in Toronto and I had to drive twenty miles to find her crying her heart out in a gutter). Usually, her travel experience is limited to looking out the window as she guards my room or car (she is, among other things, an excellent guard hedgehog). But on the last visit to TO she was an honored guest at a Birthday Brunch and got her first taste of champagne. She hasn't been the same since.

Prickles: "##-##-##-##-##-##!" (Hedgehogese and Humanese are essentially incompatible - translation impossible.)
Me: "What's that ?! Are you singing, Prickles?"
Prickles: "### ##### ## #### ### ######!"
Me: "Sorry, I didn't recognize the tune. I had no idea you liked Lerner and Loewe. Where did you pick this up?"
Prickles: "###"
Me: "I didn't think you listened to the radio - I'd have sworn people type music didn't mean much to you."
Prickles: "### ## #### ###!!"
Me: "Well, of course you're sort of people, but culturally you're a hedgehog! It's different kind of people."
Prickles: "## ### ### #### ## # #### ## ###!"
Me: "Just because you appreciate champagne doesn't make you human type people. I don't think you should try to be something you're not. Just be the best hedgehog you can be."
Prickles: "### ##### ## #### ## ## #####!"
Me: "That doesn't matter. So they don't serve hedgehogs in bars, so what? How often do we go out to drink champagne in a bar? Look, anytime I happen to be serving champagne I'll make sure you get your share, OK? Now how about you let it go and get on with your Very Important Hedgehog Tasks.There's sunshine out there waiting to be appreciated!"
Prickles: "##."
Me: "That's a good hedgehog."
Prickles: "##-##-##-##-##-##-##!"
Me: "Oh for heaven's sake!"

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/23/09 (#0534) i

After you have managed to absorb the meaning of the standard six algebraic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, powers and brackets, all of which are merely methods of counting marks) they toss at you i, the alleged square root of minus one (an arithmetical impossibility) and totally upset the apple cart. You're out at sea again, and this time without a paddle. To add to the confusion, they call it an "imaginary number" which it is not (neither imaginary nor a number).

Don't panic. The Nutshell is here to put things into a few short sentences a child can understand. First a quick review.

Addition is counting a certain number of marks, then counting another number of marks from where you left off, and finally counting all the marks from the beginning (zero) to the last mark counted.

Subtraction is the same but in reverse. You start counting backwards from the last mark counted, then count the remaining marks (which may be on the minus side of zero). The minus sign generally indicates counting backwards.

Multiplication is merely repetitive addition. You count the same number of marks some number of times then count all the marks. A minus sign means you do this in reverse. Two minus signs, of course, cancel each other out.

Division is the comparison of the size of one number with the size of another, sort of reverse of multiplication: how many times does one number have to be added to itself to make up some other number. (Division creates Fractions but that's another story).

Powers is simply super-multiplication where a number is multiplied by itself some number of times.

Brackets serve to indicate the order in which the above operations are to be performed on a group of numbers.

None of the above prepares you for the concept of a "number" which multiplied by itself equals minus one. In terms of the standard operations such a concept is nonsensical. And so it is. What makes i mysterious is that it can be plugged into an algebraic equation and everything behaves normally. Algebra does not object to the use of a "square root of minus one" and continues to crank out results which are perfectly consistent with the rules of arithmetic and the real world. What gives? What is i and what exactly does it do?

Simple (but significant): i is an operation which, like the minus sign, changes the direction of count. However, i does not reverse the direction, it rotates it 90 degrees from the original direction. Thus it is that when i is applied twice (i "squared") this is equivalent to rotating the direction of count by 180 degrees, in other words, reversing it. Voila! Applying i "squared" is equivalent to multiplying by minus one.

The significance of i is that it opens up another dimension for counting. It's like going from numbers on a straight line to numbers on a two dimensional plane. Similarly, there is a j which rotates the direction of count by 90 degrees from the plane allowing counting in three dimensions. And then there are k, l, m, etc. ad infinitum, allowing algebra to operate in any number of dimensions. But that's another story.

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/21/09 (#0533) Sex for sale

Is there actually anyrhing new that can be said on this subject? Well, we can try to put a Nutshell spin on it - that should be different.

Fact: there is a strong and continuing demand for sex which, naturally, creates a corresponding supply. It's one market that is absolutely recession-proof. There is no question that we want sex. The question that is often raised is: do we need sex? We used to, for purposes of propagation of the species, but that is no longer the case.

Possibly the no longer necessary sexual impulse will eventually atrophy thus cutting us off clearly from the animal kingdom presumably to the benefit of our evolution towards angelhood. Somehow that seems a pity, but this is the animal in me talking. It is a fact that virtually everything we do and accomplish is at least to some extent sexually motivated. Loss of sexual drive would be a human catastrophe unless replaced with some other, equally or even more powerful source of motivation (power and pride come to mind).

In the meantime, what's to stop us from rationalizing the sex market by a) legitimizing it and b) ensuring adequate supply by breeding and training boys and girls specifically for beauty and voluptuousness? Indeed, this has been and is being done worldwide but some people find it repugnant. Why? Well, for one, it reinforces our animalhood with which we have a love-hate relationship. We feel (or believe) that we are more than sex-driven automata. We resent the power the sexual drive has over us. We resist it, with mixed results. We see commodification of sex as a defeat or failure of the angelic side of our nature.

On the other hand, as the Nutshell has already noted, sex plays an important role in promoting psychological intimacy between partners. It is or can be a powerful factor in personal bonding. Sex appears to have, in fact, a potential career in our angelic lives. The Nutshell calls it the angelification of sex. But this pertains only to private sex between friends. Marketplace sex is, of course, totally devoid of this dimension even when it tries to simulate it.

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/20/09 (#0532) Intention and acceptance

If attention were a zoom lens, intention would be its telephoto setting and acceptance the wide angle. Intention zooms attention to focus specifically only on that which affects our ability to carry out our particular intent. Acceptance, on the other hand, opens attention wide to receive all that comes in. As in photography where there's time and place calling for a long zoom and another that requires a wide angle, and times and places where some intermediate focal length is appropriate, so in life generally various degrees of focused or diffuse attention have their application, often simultaneously (a trick cameras have yet to master).

The "turn on, tune in and drop out" procedure is essentially a defocusing of attention and uncritical opening up to raw unprocessed experience in its entirety. A less psychedelic version of it is "being in the moment", being aware of everything that is happening in our environment here-now, at least to the extent our minds are capable of taking in the boundless wealth of detail in the world of experience. Intentionality is turned off or at least takes a back seat. The dominant mode is observation. Letting it happen, watching and appreciating.

The opposite effect occurs when we are driven by a specific desire. We keep evaluating incoming data (and quickly discarding most of it) on basis of its usefulness in fulfilling our desire. We concentrate attention on the specific task at hand (determined by interaction of our desire with the current situation). What we judge to be unimportant we hardly notice and quickly forget.

But we cannot stay totally focused without loosing perspective which requires an awareness of the "big picture". And we cannot remain absorbed in the admiration of the "here-now" totality - the exigencies of life require purposeful action to preserve our ability to live in the moment. In fact, we need to maintain both at once: a focus on what needs to be done and awareness of the actuality of the total present situation in so far as we able to perceive it. The essential "secret" of a prosperous and joyful life is maintaining the right dynamic balance between the two as the situation changes.

Your homework for tonight: how can we know what is the "right" balance?

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/18/09 (#0531) CDP-100 and I

CDP presumably stands for "Cassio Digital Piano". Anyway, that's what a CDP-100 is, actually. A specimen stands in my living space. It looks very nice - sleek, black, elegant. Connected to a set of good speakers it sounds uncannilly like a real piano. The keys are weighted with graded weights to feel like real piano keys, all 88 of them. It does have some digital quirks the worst of which is the uneven key response in several places for complicated digital reasons. This requires some compensating in course of playing but it's doable. You just have to pay attention.

There is just one major problem and I haven't decided what to do about it. The piano that CDP-100 emulates so accurately is essentially a jazz or a rock piano rather than a romantic piano such as Beethoven or Chopin require. It is a percussive, dry instrument rather than a singing one. Bach comes off very well on this piano, but, of course, Bach comes off very well on any keyboard. On the other hand, trying to play a slow singing melody can drive you nuts.

I am an eclectic music lover and I play (or try to play) all kinds of music, including romantic. Somehow, in my research I didn't twig onto this characteristic of CDP-100. Players of classical music who reviewed it seemed to be very happy with it. I'm going to see if I can get used to it but I may wind up trading it for an instrument more compatible with the romantic side of me.

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/17/09 (#0530) Boo! Yay!

So I went to Canada for a week and gained weight. Boo!

But I only gained two pounds. Yay!

I missed seeing my old friends in Ottawa. Boo!

But I saw almost everybody else. Yay!

It was chilly in Canada. Boo!

But the reception was very warm. Yay!

Toronto was full of garbage and construction. Boo!

But there's no trace left of Toronto the Good. It's now a really baaad city. Yay!

In the countryside black flies are hanging in, mosquitos rule. Boo!

But zillions of gorgeous lakes populated by wild ducks and loons offer killer atmospherics at sunset. Yay!

City dwellers are crowding the lakefronts. Boo!

With palatial "cottages". Yay!

On the way back I fried my engine. Boo!

Twenty miles from home. Yay!

Next week I'm on jury duty. Boo!

But my digital piano finally arrived. Yay!

It sounds and feels exactly like an acoustic piano. Boo!

It sounds and feels exactly like an acoustic piano. Yay!

Back later,

Paul W.

07/06/09 (#0529) Counts and Differences

Continuing with our mathematical thread we pause to ponder a curious fact much commented upon among the numerati. The Numbers (counts of marks) are unquestionably absolute and exact but nothing in the "real" world is. Yet, as we noted at the beginning of these mathematical meditations, Numbers originate in the "real" world. How can the inherently inexact "reality" give rise to these absolutely exact entities?

Good question. The answer is that the count is not actually exact. It involves a decision by the counting intelligence regarding the individuality of the marks counted. The marks, being parts of the "real" world, do not, in fact, have absolutely sharp boundaries although some marks have more definite boundaries than others. Some marks may have boundaries so diffuse as to make it very difficult to tell whether they are individuals or merely ever so slightly differentiated parts of some larger mark. The process of discrimination and decision is not absolutely certain - the question "what exactly are we counting?" has no absolute answer.

The process of counting real marks is akin to - or perhaps identical with digitization of analog signals. The individual signals have to be disentangled from the background noise and from each other, an inexact process which can yield only an approximation, however close, to the original analog message. Nevertheless, once the decision is made (even though ultimately an arbitrary one) as to what constitutes a countable mark, the count itself is absolute, like the digital "yes" or "no". It follows that the count bears close but necessarily imperfect correspondence to the real world of the marks.

What makes marks countable as individuals is the perceived Difference between one mark and another. Like Numbers, Differences have magnitudes, but while numerical magnitudes are absolute, the differential magnitudes are relative. It is impossible to say what the smallest possible (or the largest possible) Difference may be. We can only compare Differences one with another. We can arbitrarily assign a numerical magnitude to a Difference and then determine the corresponding numerical magnitude of some other Difference. However, assigning numerical magnitudes to Differences is an inherently inexact process in itself. It's like trying to precisely measure a cloud with a yardstick. Still, it can be done to some limited degree of precision.

What is astonishing is that in the scientific numerical accounting of the state of the "real" world this precision often turns out to be so fine that no measurable error can be detected. What accounts for this uncanny precision is something I call "resonance". But that's another story for another Nutshell.

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/04/09 (#0528) Something to celebrate

The Decalaration of Independence of the United States of America (formerly a set of British colonies) is a philosophical document written by one of the top minds of the Age of Reason. It sets out a menu of high humanitarian principles which a substantial majority of Americans, regardless of their various personal beliefs, take very seriously. Very seriously. The U. S. Constitution amplifies and clarifies these principles as they apply to the American system of governance.

What is remarkable about the American philosophical identity as shaped by these documents is that it survives to this day essentially unchanged and with undiminished vigor. There are currently and have always been various degrees of deviation from and distortion of the Jeffersonian doctrine at the periphery of the American society but the center holds firmly. Even if in practice American nation frequently failed to live up to these ideals, it has never ceased to believe in them and hold them up as gold standards of social and political behavior.

A major problem with the libertarian humanitarianism constituting the foundations of the American soul is its guarantee of freedom of belief which is, in effect, a permission to undermine the American ideals from within. It is the American hope that no sane individual would want to use the freedoms granted by the Constitution to destroy these very freedoms. Unfortunately, such is not the case. There are significant populations of individuals (including Christians and Muslims) throughout the world (including the so-called "developed" nations and the U.S.A. itself) to whom American freedoms are manifestations of rampant evil, the mark of Great Satan.

I believe majority of humanity views such intolerant beliefs as hangovers from medieval and pre-medieval cultures still persisting in many parts of the world. In fact, the American cultural influence on the world is huge and growing (causing fear and loathing among the enemies of freedom of thought and speech). While the political and economic power of the U.S.A. may be waning, its way of life is being adapted and adopted worldwide (where politically possible) because people respond to its inherent values. At our best we have indeed been an example to the world and a very much appreciated one. That's something to celebrate.

Until next time,

Paul W.

07/03/09 (#0527)