[Meta
Although I rarely do so anymore, this message required a couple of
quick responses from me before it was released from the queue. Please
see them below within "[]" marks.
/Meta --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Meta
> We changed the title to be more descriptive. Better late than never.
> /Meta

Makes Sense

> On 06/10/2009 01:32 PM, freechad480 wrote:
> > Responses in bold below
> >
> > [Meta
> > MoreLife Yahoo is a strictly text group because otherwise, any editing
> > of messages before posting would have to be done to both the text and
> > html messages (which appear in separate windows when the group is in
> > html mode. For this reason bold does not work and if you want to
> > signify anything special then you need to resort to the old UseNet
> > method of placing "*" for bold and "_" or "\" for italics before and
> > after the desired text. Also for this reason, please do not use the
> > "rich text editor" at the group message entry or reply webpage since
> > doing so will cause us more editing work to clean up the mess.
> >
> > In any case you do not need to do anything special either when using
> > an email reply or when replying at the group webpages, because the
> > numbers of ">"s, the blank lines between text and the "who wrote"
> > lines at the top are sufficient to indicate the authors of all text
> > and keep everything nicely separated.
> > /Meta --Paul]
> >
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Antonik Wakfer" <paul@> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/09/2009 09:43 PM, Chad Nelson wrote:
> >>
> >>> I learned about you through one of the forum posts at www.mises.org
> >>> <http://www.mises.org/> a couple months ago.
> >>>
> >> I think that I can guess which one, but I would like to know for sure,
> >> please. And even better would be to know what about the post attracted
> >> you to investigate further.
> >>
> > The article I was reading was: http://blog.mises.org/archives/009840.asp
>
> That is what I thought. It was my critique of a section of Mises'
> _Human Action_ Chap 2 on the principle of methodological individualism.
> Unfortunately, as is so often the case with my critiques of revered
> people, on sites or within circles that revere them, there has been no
> response. I can only conclude from such lack of response that most
> people who read it decide to simply ignore it since they cannot refute
> it.

It is dangerous to idolize individuals to the point that they become
Gods. There are no sacred cows. Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Walter
Block, Marc Faber, and so on all fall into the category of human.
I respect their contributions, but I also recognize that they do/did
not get everything right.

> Ignoring something that you don't like is a prime method of
> relegating it to unimportance in the evaluation of others, no matter how
> true it is.

Agreed. This is the trap that an individual should avoid to the
extent that truth is the objective.

>While it is true that my critique did not get posted until 2
> days after the article (a simple reprint of Mises' text) because it was
> long and got initially rejected by the system, clearly it did get read
> by some people, you at the least.
>
> I would still appreciate your telling me what about it attracted you
> to further investigate me.

I found myself in disagreement with the article in the I / We / Ego
section. In reading your comment I found that you articulated my
disagreement, and it made me want to learn more.

> >> This information will be valuable to me
> >> because I am having some difficulty attracting people who are capable
> >> of understanding my ideas and are in sufficient agreement to even wish
> >> to engage me in dialog about them.

One of the reasons that it is difficult to attract individuals is that
many people do not read the long comments (even the people that read
mises.org). It may be wise to break the comment into bite-size
chunks. I know some people that feel insulted by long posts. These
individuals purposefully ignore the long ones.

> >> This is understandable since those
> >> ideas are not part of any currently established and widely known social
> >> model, and one of the major problems with current society is the lack
> >> of truly open minded and analytical people.

The pump must be primed. Otherwise, individuals will feel like they
are swimming in the ocean. What one doesn't understand gets ignored
or blamed for the problem. Yesterday, my grandfather told me that the
Internet is the cause of the world's problems. This makes no sense.
The Internet is just a tool. The reality is that my grandfather does
not understand the Internet, and it is therefore convenient to blame
the general problems of the world on this nebulous Internet.

> > Something I have found is that individuals have to discover much of this
> > on their own. You can provide a light or stretch out your hand, but
> > they have to take the next step. The individual must also be willing to
> > sincerely question every principle that they have accepted as "truth".
>
> All of this is very true and I generally always act that way in all my
> education endeavors. The individual has to analyze the data, digest
> the information, extract the essences and make them a part of hir
> brain by integrating them with all hir other convictions.
>
> Almost 30 years ago, I learned from Nathaniel Branden the expression
> of "owning" one's ideas and emotions, which expression I greatly
> valued and used for many years until reading your response and writing
> this reply. I now realize that the use of the word "own" both distorts
> the process of information integration into the brain/mind and worse,
> confuses the status of such information with that of property to which
> the concept of ownership does correctly and fully apply.

I have not thought enough about this to feel comfortable venturing
beyond this depth.

> > They must also acknowledge that ideas are not Self rather they are
> > Possessions. Possessions with the unique characteristic of being
> > possessible by all.
>
> The first, "ideas are not Self rather they are possessions", is an
> interesting expression that I had not seen or thought before, but I do
> not agree with it. In fact, I see several problems with the approach
> of these last two sentences:
> 1) The clear distinction between "data" and "information" should always
> be made. (In fact, I think that the Natural Social Contract (NSC) may
> need to be altered in order to make this clear.)

I still need to read the Natural Social Contract. I am assuming that
you are disagreeing with the possession part of the statement. My
idea is not me rather it is an entity that was generated by me with
the help of some stimuli.

> 2) "Ideas" are definitely information rather than data. They are a
> product of the individual human brain/mind acting on the data that it
> receives from some external source.

I am confused about the difference between information and data. I
would lump them in the same category. Again I have not thought about
this very much.

> 3) For that same reason each instance of an idea is actually unique to
> the person in whose brain/mind it resides. It is uniquely integrated
> with all hir other knowledge and is essentially inseparable from its
> integration into the whole of the mind.

Never thought about this before, but I agree that each instance of an
idea is unique to the person. This is similar to an individuals
perception of a given event or object.

If two people come up with the idea of creating a hotdog stand, then
there will be differences it the specifics. However, the ideas are
not unique at the highest level of creating the hotdog stand, but at
the implementation level e.g. color, shape, size, portability, and so
on they may vary greatly. The other important point about an
individual's specific ideas is that they are dynamic and change based
on new data or information that was not previously available.

> 4) Therefore, at best, any idea in a person's mind can only be partially
> communicated to others. This is as opposed to an item of property, which
> can be transferred in its entirety to another person.

Again I would agree at the micro level. At the macro level general
ideas can be communicated completely.

> 5) The important social aspect of "possessions" is their ability to be
> "property" - to be owned by a given person (or persons under the terms
> of a contract among them). For that reason, it is important to clearly
> distinguish between the concepts of "ownership", "possession" and
> "control" as I have done within their definitions in the NSC.

I still need to read this document.

> 6) Because data is possessable by more than one person, I think that it
> is invalid, or at least confusing, to describe it as property (which
> is not thus possessable), and this is even more the case for
> information, which, as described above is unique to the individual
> mind in which it resides.

Agree that it is confusing to think of data as property especially if
classifying it as property conveys some entitlement(s) that assume
unique or exclusive possession as opposed to distributed possession.

> 7) The above analysis leads to the complete repudiation of the notion of
> copyright (which was already not part of my social system). Because of
> this, while the originator of data and information certainly has
> contractual entitlements to that data and information given that such
> contracts are concluded with the receiver voluntarily and prior to any
> transmission, s/he has no "ownership" entitlement once the data and
> information have been made "public" (since there can be no such valid
> contract with everyone).

Agreed. Copyright is bad. Any individual that consumes public data
is entitled to use that data. It is not possible to unconsumed data.

> 8) As far as I can see then, the only way that is left to reward the
> originator of data and of information, even for the partial amount of
> which a person is capable of transferring, is the method of value for
> value - a voluntary transfer to the originator of the data and/or
> information of an amount of value equivalent to that obtained from the
> transfer by the receiver of the data and/or information.

An after-the-fact value for value transactions can be a way to reward
releasers of data. Donations and Advertising are used to accomplish
this, however, individuals other than yourself might benefit from the
advertizing revenue since they are free to distribute your work.

A before-the-fact value for value transaction can also occur. This is
similar to the venture capital model. One or more people pay me to
produce and release a book or video. It is a model that will be
implemented by this website: http://www.piratemyfilm.com/

Here is a link to a video explaining the concept:
http://maxkeiser.com/2009/04/08/stacy-blog-the-piratemyfilm-pitch-in-video-a-new\
-t-shirt-design/

> Chad, I wish to thank you for the stimulation from your words (even
> though I disagreed with them :), causing me to describe my thoughts
> about information as above in a far more complete and logical manner
> than I have ever done before.

Your welcome.

> >>> Yesterday, I completed reading your document about social meta-needs.
> >>> I found that your arguments against rights were quite compelling.
> >>>
> >> Again that's great to hear. When I submitted the Social Meta-Needs
> >> treatise to Libertarian Papers <http://www.LibertarianPapers.org> it
> >> was rejected with the remark from one "reviewer" (I put it in quotes
> >> because the speed of rejection was such that no one could have
> >> actually taken time to study it in detail) that the paper was "just
> >> providing a slightly new and modish vocabulary for the same things
> >> that we all accept".
> >>
> > Have you sent any of your papers to Walter Block? I am curious as to
> > how he would respond. He seems willing to consider many different
> > points of view.
>
> I first heard of Walter Block when I read his book "Defending the
> Undefendable", probably a couple of years after its publication in 1976.
> I immediately thought it was great, even though I was still an
> objectivist limited governmentalist at that time. However, I also took
> exception with his designation of "hero" status to pimps, slum-lords
> and drug pushers, even though he was fully correct in defending the
> legality, and to some extent even the value, of some of their actions.
> Soon after reading the book, I and several other Toronto libertarians
> heard that Block was speaking at a libertarian event in Detroit (an
> easy drive from Toronto) and went to see him there. I happened to be
> sitting in the front row with my copy of his book on the table in
> front of me. At the beginning of his talk he needed a copy, spotted
> mine and used it. As a result my copy now contains a written note of
> thanks from him inside its front cover. So as you can see Walter Block
> was one of my earliest libertarian heroes.

He has certainly influenced me during the past 2-3 years.

> Fast forward to Fall 2002.
> I and Kitty attended the Freedom Summit in Phoenix -
> http://freedomsummit.com (my first winter at our home in AZ, after
> having my entry ban to the US lifted). Part of the reason for attending
> was that Walter Block was the after dinner speaker. Another major part
> of the reason was that George H Smith was also speaking (another one of
> my libertarian heroes for many years and at that time). What happened to
> my connection with Smith is documented in the dialog section of SelfSIP
> and even more and worse since has not been documented but is available
> to be seen on the Internet.

I do not know much about George H Smith.

> Anyway, getting back to Block, naturally I was looking forward to his
> talk (which unfortunately now I cannot remember the title or subject
> matter). After it was finished, during the audience question period, I
> posed to him a question of some substance and foundational originality
> (again I cannot remember exactly what). His response was very equivocal
> and when pressed further, he simply relied on the opinion of Murray
> Rothbard as an *authority* on the subject (argument from authority).
> This single event of usage of such well-known false logic, greatly
> reduced my respect for Block. Jim Davidson (http://indomitus.net/jdbio.html)
> was sitting at our table, was a witness to the whole affair (and might
> remember the subject) and agreed that Block's response was effectively
> denigrating and evading the question.

This is disappointing. However, it does not seem appropriate to
immediately move someone from the hero bin to the garbage bin. It
should be recognized that radical ideas are radical because many
people have not considered them. Everyone disagrees with another
person about something. There does not appear to be slack in your
system human error. I do not agree with everyone on everything. In
fact, I expect a lack of agreement. If I agree with someone 80% of
the time, then I will not toss them aside just because they do not
agree with me on the other 20%. Rules for human interaction should be
flexible enough to accommodate dissimilarity between human actors.

> Walter Block is also one of the editors of Libertarian Papers, and could
> well be one of those who peremptorily dismissed my submission. Yes, I
> guess that I should send it to him anyway, but I have little confidence
> that he would actually read it and think about it seriously, so I have
> not done so.

I would encourage you to devise a plan that results in Walter Block
reading and seriously reviewing all of your papers. As opposed to
assuming that it will not work. Half-hearted efforts lead to
half-hearted results. One way may be to pay him. Value for value
typically gets my attention. Of course you shouldn't offer cash
unless he declines the "review for free" option. I "believe" that he
is on sabbatical right now meaning that he may have some extra time.

> I chose instead to ask Jan Narveson, one of the other
> Libertarian Papers editors who I have also met and talked with, to
> review it. He did tell me he had not seen it because he was so busy
> at the time, but that it looked interesting and that he would take a
> look at it when he was finished his editing of a book for publication.
> But so far he has not and a reminder to him a few weeks ago went
> unanswered. I have now decided that I will send it out to several more
> people (including Block) because there is little loss in doing so and
> if I don't send it then the response is automatically null.

Great!

> > On a separate note: I have forwarded some of your links to a couple
> > people who may be interested.
>
> Good. I look forward to hearing about any response that you get.

Only received a response from one person. His response was that he
did not like the way the website looked and that he thought this
project was similar to that of the tower of Babel. This surprised me
since I pegged this individual as more open-minded and less lazy. I
made three attempts to get him to read the Social Meta-Needs document.

> >>> What struck me as more surprising, however, was that you are seeking
> >>> to put the ideas of liberty into practise.
> >>>
> >> I have always been both a theoretician and practical person in many
> >> diverse areas. I don't agree that there is any dichotomy between
> >> theory and practice. If some theory is not practical then it simply is
> >> not a valid theory (one that is true of reality).

I agree with and also possess the desire to put theory to the test.

[Meta
I have belatedly and retroactively changed the entire following dialog,
and few other similar remarks later on, to Meta status.
/Meta --Paul]

> Meta
> Chad, It is one of my requirements of dialog, that my respondent make
> a response to everything of substance that I state. If one does not do
> this, I take it as a kind of insult, equivalent to totally ignoring
> something of substance that I have stated during an in-person
> conversation. And I will not continue discussion for long with someone
> who continues to ignore things that I say or write. Furthermore even
> if you assure me that you always read and take in all of my responses,
> without some kind of response text I have no way to know the level of
> your understanding of it.
>
> So please respond to everything only if to say that you agree or
> disagree, but do not currently have either the time or sufficient deep
> thinking about the subject to give reasons for your agreement or
> disagreement (particularly if the latter).

I understand your concern to a certain level and will make an effort
to address all responses. As far as insults are concerned please be
cautious about inferring insults. If I intend to insult you I will
make it very clear by stating, "The following is intended to insult
you" this would then be followed by clear and unambiguous insults that
attack both the message and the messenger. Be advised that I do not
toss insults around lightly. I also make an effort to understand the
other individual even though a certain action or lack thereof may on
the surface seem insulting. I expect the same from you.

[Meta
My usage of "I take it as a *kind of* insult" (emphasis added) was
meant to signify both that the act of not responding to a substantive
remark had a negative effect on me similar to that of an insult and
that the effect was unintended. I guess that I should have used the
longer phrase "I take it as a kind of unintended insult" to make that
dual purpose clearer.
OTOH, perhaps the word "insult" is always too "hot" and I would have
been better to say: "I see it as discourteous".
OTOH-2, once a person fully understands Social Meta-Needs and its NSC
and Social Preferencing implementations, s/he will realize that
intentions bear no relationship to harm. Unfortunately, because my
creation has had such a revolutionary change on my own thinking, I
often have trouble remembering how I must deal with others who are not
yet so changed./Meta --Paul]


Another factor involved in missing responses is that the inline
comment form provided by Yahoo is very difficult to use. The forum
interface provided at mises.org is years ahead of the text-based caret
system. I will make an effort to remedy this by reducing the number
of subjects discussed in a particular post.

[Chad, As I have advised several others and they have found it to be
far better, the best way to operate with Yahoo groups is either to
respond at the group web interface, or far better still, get a mail
reader on your computer (I use and recommend Thunderbird) to which you
get your Yahoo group messages sent (individually, since the group
traffic is very light) and then use the reply function in the email
reader. This will ensure that the formatting of the message as
received by us in the queue is also optimal - something that is not
true now and we have to do a little cleanup to each of your messages
before releasing it. --Paul]

>/Meta

> >>> I too am developing a plan to do the exact same thing in (to my
> >>> pleasant surprise) a similar way.
> >>> I have various materials that I can share with you if you are interested.
> >>>
> >> Yes, I would like to know everything about it. There are far too many
> >> people going off independently in all sorts of directions, and with
> >> most people in current society not knowing how to evaluate, this
> >> greatly weakens the possibility of any one way to attract sufficient
> >> others to get anywhere.
>
> Meta
> Again you did not respond, although in this case your response to my
> text below could be seen as also a response to the above.

Correct my response is below.

> /Meta

> >>> My plan is to launch a web site by the end of the year that
> >>> facilitates Social Preferencing.
> >>>
> >> I also want to know precisely what you mean by the phrase "facilitates

See the link below.

> >> Social Preferencing" and how your plans will do that. I sincerely hope
> >> that we can merge our plans into one effort.
> >
> > This post is a good introduction to what I am interested in doing. It
> > is the how that I am still working on:
> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/2036
>
> And I have now responded to that message about your plans, as much of
> them as I understand. Most definitely the details of the "how" will
> require a lot of deep thinking and major design/programming efforts.
>
> > It should be pointed out that this is only one facet of the plan. This
> > sort of system will enable the connection of likeminded individuals
> > which of course is only the beginning. Physical communities (not just
> > online communities) could be formed anywhere that humans exist that
> > follow a specific formula (still to be developed). Liberated
> > communities will be as ubiquitous as fast food restaurants once the plan
> > blossoms.
>
> As I stated in the other message, I have a major problem with such
> physical communities within the current statist societies. They are far
> too easy targets for those in power to destroy. The US is not a free
> country any longer (if it ever was one) wherein those doing no harm to
> others are allowed to live as they want to. The only way that a large
> liberty oriented movement will be able to survive and to successfully
> undermine and replace any current society is for it to remain highly
> decentralized and totally dispersed/immersed within the current
> population, essentially succeeding from the current society as much as
> possible. Besides which, such immersion is a far better way to persuade
> others in society of the validity of one's ideas, and thereby to
> greatly abandon using the methods of the current society.

The plan may take a century to implement. Ultimately physical
communities need to grow out of the system or all the talk about
putting theory into practice is meaningless. Agree that the initial
strategy should be to establish connections online. The true test of
this system is whether it can be incrementally reclaim liberty and
freedom for the individuals using it.

> >>> Would you be interested participating in an online meeting with me
> >>> to determine whether it would be beneficial for us to work together?
> >>>
> >> Absolutely yes! On the MoreLife group Yahoo would be best for me. All
> >> such discussion will be eventually moved to the appropriate wiki
> >> (Valu4Valu.org, OpenLives.net, SelfSIP.org or MoreLife.org) when they
> >> are ready, in order to get more visibility.

Comments about the websites: The wikis appear to be unpopulated.
SelfSIP.org is difficult and confusing to navigate and piece together.
There are many links that are remote and difficult to access.

The other issue is that encountering these ideas is like being dropped
naked into Antarctica. I've been working on a system that attempts to
gentle expose individuals to the implications of their views as a
means of encouraging them to voluntarily change their ideology.

> Again you failed to respond to the above and several more text items below.
>
> >>> I am most interested in learning more about the following two
> >>> items listed on your site:
> >>>
> >>> * Outline of the Program of Implementation [in progress]
> >>>
> >> I have written small items about this in several places, but have not
> >> done any comprehensive work, since so far no one has really understood
> >> my work, agreed with it (or got me to change it to be more correct)
> >> and joined me to promote it. As I always state, before one starts to
> >> implement a plan to attain a certain goal (a newly organized society,
> >> in this case) one first needs to know that and how such a goal will be
> >> beneficial (before one begins a journey one needs to know the
> >> destination). Therefore, talk about implementation is a little ways
> >> off, IMO.

I very much agree that a plan is important. I am working on such a
plan with an eye toward sustainability. The plan goal has two parts
outreach to the uninitiated and a support system for practitioners.
The details of the plan are still under development, and I will reveal
more details in the future.

>Nevertheless I do have many ideas already formulated.

I would like to talk about these ideas.

> Meta
> Again no response. Please do so.
>/Meta
>
> >>> * Self-Sovereign Personal Database Website [planned]
> >>>
> >> This is already begun as the wiki http://OpenLives.net

It is unclear how the wiki will be used. Also, the wiki appears to be empty.

> Meta
> Please respond.
> /Meta
>
> >>> *My Skills:*
> >>> Engineering
> >>> Web Programming
> >>> Enthusiasm
> >>>
> >> Interesting, These match mine and Kitty's quite well. We are both
> >> Engineering graduates (among other academic areas). I have been
> >> involved with computers off and on for over 35 years. And under the
> >> right circumstances we both have lots of energy and enthusiasm.

Maybe the key is that engineers tend to enjoy solving problems as opposed to
simply identifying them and proposing solutions. Mises.org does a good job of
exposing individuals to problems and offering solution. However, it has done
little for me as far as providing a system for implementation. One can say that
societal system X would be ideal, but offering no mechanism by which individuals
can migrate to system X from their current system leaves a person unsatisfied.
Statements like if everyone thought Y then system X could be implemented offers
only an objective. An objective with no means of achievement is referred to as
impotence. I want to develop a method for changing the way people think.

> Meta
> Please respond.
> /Meta
>
> >>> *My Vision:*
> >>> Create a system that permits liberty to flourish anywhere in the universe.
> >>>
> >> Same here. But not only liberty - more importantly, maximum possible
> >> freedom (in the sense of available actions).
> >>
> > I see. That is something that I did not directly have in mind, but
> > expanding the boundaries on available actions makes sense.
>
> Liberty per se, cannot increase Lifetime Happiness. Only available
> actions that are chosen and acted upon can do that. Liberty is only
> valuable as a *means* to aid the creation of more available actions
> that can then be chosen and acted upon with the intention of increasing
> one's lifetime happiness.
>
> >> See the definitions of
> >> Liberty and Freedom in the Natural Social Contract
> >> <http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html> and their annotations to
> >> understand the difference between Freedom and Liberty (the latter is
> >> merely a prerequisite for maximal Freedom).
> >>
> > I have not yet read those two documents. I am currently in the process
> > of writing a review of the paper about "Social Meta-Needs" there are a
> > few spots where my understanding needs to be expanded.
>
> Such "expansion" would likely occur if you read all the rest of
> SelfSIP.org. It is all a coherent and related whole, no part of which
> can stand entirely alone and each part of which will elucidate and
> illuminate the other parts. That is why everything is so intensively
> hyperlinked. Nevertheless, doing a review of each part, with some open
> questions, is still an excellent way to organize your study of the total.

Portions of the review will be released soon.

> >>> *Location:*
> >>> Winchester, VA
> >>> 703-881-3199
> >>>
> >>> P.S. Where are you located?
> >>>
> >> Unfortunately you are not close to either of our residences:
> >> May to October inclusive: Harcourt Park Ontario Canada - my legal
> >> residence as a Canadian citizen
> >> November to April inclusive: Casa Grande Arizona USA - Kitty's legal
> >> residence as a US citizen
> >
> > I was just in Arizona. While their I visited the Mago Retreat in
> > Sedona: http://www.sedonamagoretreat.org/ .
>
> [Sedona is a truly beautiful area of Arizona - and there a lots of
> them. I took a number of photos of a hike in 2 locales back on April 2
> 2006 - http://morelife.org/personal/photos2006/photos_49.html
> Unfortunately in the last ~25 years Sedona has become a very expensive
> place to live and even visit. I first visited it briefly with my
> former husband Ed and our then very young son Andy in probably 1977 -
> it was just a sleepy town with a lot of nice scenery *and* a river
> that actually had running water in it all the time, not like the dry
> washes in the desert that only run when there is a real downpour. **Kitty]

I see.

> > The reason that I mention this here is that the Energy Yoga practised
> > their has helped me to be a better and happier person. Disclaimer: The
> > "scientific research" portion of the organization is neither science nor
> > research. If you can look beyond that, and watch your wallet (though
> > I've found that the value received is typically comensurate with the
> > cost) you might find it interesting.
>
> Yes, I and Kitty are familiar with some of the benefits to be obtained
> from yoga (some of which does have scientific backing), although we are
> not familiar with exactly what "Energy Yoga" constitutes. Such benefits
> can also be obtained from other activities - particularly for the
> psychological benefits much better, far more lasting and with far less
> cost than formal classes.

Agree that activity and exercise is important.

> [Certain kinds of purposeful body movements are very conducive to
> relaxation as well as improvement in flexibility, balance and
> strength. Tai-chi is another one that has received a lot of study. But
> so is dance like ballet and I am sure that many individuals can relate
> their own experiences with various activities. The slow ones with
> periods of stillness where remaining posed is not or no longer
> stressful seem to be more likely to allow the participant to mentally
> focus on something other than the immediate activity itself and
> therefore have potential for longterm relaxation. OTOH doing a
> physical activity that is outside one's usual activities can enable a
> person to temporarily detach from tasks that are not mentally
> rewarding and, even if those are enjoyed, provide a challenge of sorts.
> For us, we find that purposeful physical activities - lots of manual
> wood cutting and chopping for the past several weeks here in Harcourt
> Park ON - is the best form of exercise. And it definitely gives one a
> sense of accomplishment when looking at those split logs...;>) When it
> gets warmer next month I expect to be out wet scrubbing - mostly with
> a long handled brush - our dock, deck and back porch to get the small
> amount of (returning) algae off. This method eliminates the use of
> chemicals (that can get into the lake) and provides lots of physical
> activity. Then those green-free cedar planks will look nice and have
> no tendency towards slipperiness when wet.
> Paul plans to get back to finishing the roof scrubbing, a task he only
> partially completed in the Fall of 2007 and did not have time for last
> year - see
> http://morelife.org/personal/photos2007/photos_61.html about 2/3 down
> the page.

Looks like a lot of good work.

> Chad, specifically in regard to being a "better and happier person",
> if you are not already well familiar the cognitive behavioral model
> (theory), you might find the books _Feeling Good Handbook_ by David D
> Burns and _Mind Over Mood: Change How You Feel by Changing the Way You
> Think_ by Greenberger & Pedasky of particular value - even if you are
> pleased with yourself now. There is reference to these books and a
> couple others on CBT on the MoreLife Practice Index under Outlook -
> http://morelife.org/practiceindex.html. There have also been some
> previous interesting threads here at the group that include discussion
> of CBT and the books. **Kitty]

I will add these to my long list of things to read.

> Meta
> Chad,
> Please try to be more careful with your use of "their" versus "there".
> It is always important to reread your writings for meaning, grammar
> and typos before you send them off.
> /Meta

I do re-read my responses, but being human I do not catch everything.

> >> We sometimes visit people in between during our bi-yearly migration,
> >> but we have rarely been to VA and we refuse to fly, the airport
> >> regulations situation being as it is.
>
> This is one that did not really need a response, except to perhaps
> comment on the no-fly decision, so strongly expressed.

If I am ever headed to Canada or Arizona I will make an effort to see
if we can meet.

> >>> Chad
> >>> www.downsizedc.org <http://www.downsizedc.org/>
> >>>
> >> Kitty could not find any sign of you on that web site. How are you
> >> related to downsizedc.org?
> >>
> > I am a member of downsizedc.org. I donate money to them, and send
> > emails to my "Representatives". Professional politics is not the
> > answer, however, laying a tree in front of the steamroller helps to buy
> > time.
>
> While the latter is most certainly true, there are far too many people
> occupying all their free time with "laying such trees" (although
> relative to the size and power of government it is more like laying a
> few tiny branches in front of a steam roller).

Agreed. Every person should be aware of the impact of their actions
and attempt to weigh the opportunity cost carefully.

> --Paul


Chad Nelson