Greeting to the Unknown Human (and non-human, too)

Hello, dear you,

I am thinking of you tonight, this New Year's Eve, with fireworks lighting the dark December skies before fading into silently falling cinders, among the distant sounds of merry people from afar.

Many people are faking joy tonight.
There's no harm in that.
Faking joy is still better than faking a sadness deeper than it is, or displaying despair, or affecting boredom, which is a crime.

Faking joy is a way - a timid way - of expressing hope.
And that is all we need, all of us. Hope. And faith.
That is all the love - all the caritas- we really need, because it is that secret sense of being loved, after all, that fuels hope and feeds faith in the first place.

You are loved.
That's all I wanted to tell you tonight.

Your personal loneliness is felt by many out there that you've never met in person.
Your true talents, sadly wasted, a source of burning regrets, are still there, and they are acknowledged, even if you never have the opportunity to display them publicly.

Your bittersweet memories, seemingly so humble in their seeming smallness, less than a whisper in in this loud world, the memory of your sorrows, your joys, your hopes - even those that were dashed - live on in me, and in many others, even though we may never learn the name given to you by others, or see your face.

The eye of God sees all your worth, undiscovered by others.
And that worth, you very Self, will live forever and ever - because it has existed since the beginning of time.

I don't know your name, and I don't know your address, that's why I am posting this here.
I know that you may not read English; or read at all.
I know you possibly, quite probably, do not have internet access.
In fact, you may not even be a human.

But you are life, irreplaceable in your seeming smallness.
And thought can span nameless deserts, penetrate the darkest forests of the unknown, and reach you.
Just keep your eyes and your ears - and your heart - alert.
We are here.

You may feel you're forgotten and forsaken, but you are not.
I am thinking of you, with all the warmth and respect - and hope - that my heart, this little chip off God's heart, is capable of.

Fare well, dear you unknown.
The road is endless.
And there is nothing to be afraid of. Ever.

IF YOU LIKED THIS, YOU MIGHT ENJOY THIS:

The Little Green Stick

Underrated Websites, II

If you love music, YouTube is fine. It is very fine, in fact.

But often people want to just listen song after song - of their own choosing - without being lured by video content or having to choose a new tune every three minutes or so. An internet radio, as it were.

For those people, the internet is not as rich as one might imagine.

Pandora works - or used to work - for USA listeners only.

But there is a whole wide world outside the USA, and that world is inhabited by people who like music.

For those people the least hassle-free website we've found so far is this:

JANGO

It still has a long way to go, in terms of music selection.

But as it is now, its future looks promising... provided it doesn't succumb to the "social media" pressure and starts making things difficult for those who won't register just to listen to a couple of tunes.

Keep it simple, Jango, and we'll love you by the millions.

Here is the previous entry in UNDERRATED WEBSITES.

When You Wish Upon the Moon

Somebody - quite a lot of people - told me that the full moon has the astrologically demonstrated (?) effect of bringing things to fruition. Specifically, things that were started - wished upon - at the time of the new moon (i.e. the opposite of the full moon - the "empty" moon :)).

I am not much into astrology, although I am not dismissing it totally.

But I am very much into anything that makes people happy, and that includes the realisation of their purest, most heartfelt wishes.

Many people seem to think that the deepest secrets of our befuddled existence have to be uttered by noted philosophers, or, at the very least, by "published authors" (of books or - o tempora, o mores - noted blogs. And we're not naming any names...)

But having read and heard and seen and experienced as much I have, I have noticed that sometimes the most astonishing nuggets of true wisdom are to be found in -B films (yes, that's a B minus ), or in popular songs.

Here is one, a very simple and beloved one, from the 1940 Disney production of Pinocchio.

It is a very nice song.

But it's more than that.

There is a single line in it that contains the entire truth of all "self realisation" and "manifestation" books put together.

You'll have to find it yourself.

But finding it is only the beginning.

Iif you do not believe it is true - if you don't LIVE its truth - then all the Rhonda Byrnes of this world won't help you. You might as well stop reading all that junk - and even good books of the kind - right now.

Happy Full Moon time to all of us.

A-Tcho!

It's not a sneeze, but Gesundheit, or "to your health", apparently still is the right answer to this one.

One of the bizarre pleasures of blogging is that you get to write about things in which you have a purely anthropological interest.

Chocolate being one of them.
I am told I am a rare bird (which, I think, is a euphemism for a different expression) for not loving chocolate.
It is not that I dislike it - certainly not in general.
And there have been many, many occasions when I absolutely enjoyed the experience.

It's just that when picking a dessert, for example, chocolate would be the last thing on my mind. I love caramel, for example; and I like a good, moist cake - as long as it doesn't contain chocolate.
I will eat it - often, not always - but I would not choose it for myself.

What I do like - love, honour and respect - is good craftmanship, genuine dedication, professional pluck, creativity and integrity.
Which is why I could spend days, not hours, admiring jewelry - which I absolute abhor wearing (and don't, not a single piece).

And which is why I am now writing about chocolate, of all things.
I may not crave it myself, but have friends who do.
And most of all, I am always touched to see a few talented and courageous people trying to make a dent in the bastion-like snobbery of the food business. (See this NYT article for details.)

With all that in mind, I present you TCHO.

I am not associated with them in any way, I only heard about them today - thanks, NYT! - and have no vested interest in their business success or failure.

But as someone who loves sensible, people-oriented creativity and individual dedication in a standardised and homogenised world, I am rooting for them.

Am I a Quiz?

I am inquisitive.
And people do give me quizzical looks (or just myopic, for all I know) all too often for comfort.
But I haven't been made into a quiz, not yet. That is for dead (or thereabouts) pop celebrities.


I don't even like quizzes - with a few exceptions.
If you do, you'll LOVE AquizIam.
The same goes for lovers of challenging riddles and games.
And mysteries.


So, we have a new favourite website. Well, I have.
But knowing my mates, they'll be spending time there like the crazy bats that they are. (Stylish crazy bats, though!)


As a matter of fact, I'll be sending this specific item over to Time Slips, so don't compound your understandable Angst by suspecting deja vu, too.

The Museum of Lost Wonder

Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Have a look.


The Museum of Lost Wonder


And if you're wondering how we found it (or even if you're not), it was thanks to this extraordinary blog.

The Esoteric Blog


Enjoy.
(That's about the most you can do in this world.)

People are passively intelligent. What does this mean for plants?

A co-blogger sent me a link to Cynthia Sue Larson's website today, where I found a link to an article called Plants are Actively intelligent. (Do you find this headline as frighteningly backward as I do, I wonder? It was not written by Cynthia Sue Larson, by the way.)

After my initial "duh" moment I became more than a little angry with the angle of the article, intimated by the second sentence of the title: What Does This Mean for Vegetarians?

As a vegetarian, I am rather used to shallow silliness parading as intellectually powerful insight - usually coming from people who find themselves unable to give up eating meat, even if they know how it's "harvested". (So much for will power and/or moral strength...)
So I surfed on to the original source of the article - the New York Times.

Unsurprisingly, the "angle" was the same, and the title just as obnoxious, or even more so: Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too.
(And by the way... what is the author "sorry" about, I wonder?)

But the article itself really deserves your attention. It is thoughtfully - and well - written.

Yes, plants are actively (whatever that means) intelligent ; and yes, brussel sprouts are alive and presumably would prefer to stay that way - even those of us who are not vegans are familiar with that simple fact of life; have been for quite a while, as a matter of fact.

But, fair enough, what does it mean to us?

It means that we have to acknowledge - once again - that the the limits separating the "I" and the "Other" are all but fictitious; and that the "Other" includes plants.
But that much many of us - albeit not nearly enough of us - know already.

It also means we have to acknowledge - yet again -that we do not really know how the alchemy of nature works.
And there is also the fact that individual plants - unlike individual animals - are not necessarily destroyed by the act of cutting or digging out a part of them.

Oh, a cop out!, I hear you say.
No, not exactly. Ignorance is not bliss, certainly not in this case; certainly not for those who are aware enough to even ponder on these things.
In this case, ignorance is painful.
(Which should at least appease, if not make happy, all those who see pain, either emotional or physical or both, as apparently the only way to redeem oneself.)

But there is another question, conveniently (albeit not very smartly or elegantly) left unaddressed: why should it mean something for vegans and vegetarians, specifically? How about all the other people? Mankind in general?

There are always choices to be made; and they always affect someone or something else.
And they should be made with the full awareness that that someone or something is no less entitled to Life as you, as I, making those choices uncomfortable.

Whatever it means to you, you'll the one who'll have to come to grips with it.
But you should know about this, if you didn't already, and that is why I am posting this.


P.S. It also makes the efforts of this blogging colleague of ours all the more intriguing, doesn't it? ;)

I am a ficus, hear me roar

The best clairvoyant of them all?

I believe - I know - the "future" (whatever it is) can be sensed, seen, heard... predicted.
I know it because I have experienced precognition myself and have seen it happen to other members of my family and to some friends.

What does that tell us about time...?
Exactly.
But this blog doesn't deal with that.
(Here's one - one of ours - that does.)

Which is why I find it odd that so few renowned "clairvoyants" appear to be convincing.
In fact, quite a few of the most (in)famous "seers" - or "psychics", as the Americans call them - seem to be little more than frauds. Very, very wealthy frauds, I suspect.

And then, there are the myriad incognito seers scattered around the world, that the world knows little about.
But not all of them dwell in caves or remote villages, divorced from the "civilised" world.
What follows (through the link) is an account about a very cosmopolitan clairvoyant who apparently predicted Nixon's resignation years in advance and helped find abducted heiress Patty Hearst in a matter of hours.

I literally stumbled upon it during a search for a subject that had nothing whatsoever to do with clairvoyants. But the few lines I read diagonally while scrolling down to what I thought would be a tidbit of interest inevitably arrested my attention.

I don't know if this is legit - it could be some sort of joke, for all I know - but I can guarantee you a few minutes of very entertaining and intriguing reading.

See for yourself.

Nik Raka AKA Nik the Quick

(EDIT: The original article has been taken down.

The link now points to the archived copy.)

If this is true, I must say it's rather impressive.
Beyond impressive, actually.

If you ever talk to him, let me know how it went.
I am not sure I even believe in the subdivision of time called the "future"; but I am too afraid to inquire about it all the same.

"Always on" - another Google turn-off

I hate to break the "lyrical" mood apparently introduced by the previous post (and thank you, Natalya, for yor kind words!), but I just have to vent my latest grievance agaist Google.

A few minutes ago, literally in the middle of the night, I noticed that the Google results display was somehow different to what I was used to. There was a side bar on the left side of the screen, that I've never seen before.

There wasn't much to it, even though the first line said, cryptically, "everything" and just underneath it, "more".
(Yes: first "everything", and then you get even "more" than everything... I wonder, do the Google people - maybe we should call them "goople" - ever realise the unintended ironies of their logically challenged onscreen lingo?)

The rest were the usual options, the ones you are used to seeing just below the search box, plus "more search options".

At first I thought I had inadvertently clicked on a wrong button, so I tried to click it back to the standard view.
It didn't work.
So I turned to - who else? - Google and searched for the origins of this silent novelty and, more to the point, for ways to make it disappear.

I found all of it here.

According to this article, "Google is quietly conducting an experiment where the search options side-bar is automatically opened every time search results is shown. In current Google search results interface, which in fact has already been enhanced with the search options, the sidebar opens the left only when clicked."

Yes, well, I don't like "quiet experiments", especially not at the expense of my wits and time (= the time I have to spend searching for disabling techniques instead of doing things I enjoy.)

And, rather typically, "unfortunately, Google does not provide a single switch or option that can turn off and disable the always-on sidebar layout on its search results page".

But they are using cookies to determine whether you'll keep it or switch it off.
(Guess what my cookies told them?)
So, if you want to get rid of it permanently, you have to delete the cookies related to Google.


FIREFOX users:

Go to Tools -> Options -> Privacy tab. Click on remove individual cookies link. Expand the Google domain which display the new “always-on” sidebar (such as google.com), highlight the cookie named PREF and click on Remove Cookie button to delete the cookie.

OR go to Tools -> Clear Recent History. Choose Everything, and then Cookies, then press Clear Now button.

INTERNET EXPLORER users:

First, go download Flock or Firefox or Opera or even Chrome and set it to be your default browser - then we can talk... :)



I like novelties. I cherish and welcome (and even suggest) them - provided they are useful or at least amusing.
This one is neither.

And to me, the addition of "more search options" - all of which are really just dumbed down search practices that any user with some experience and/or logical abilities would be performing by themselves - confirms my suspicions that Google is not only accepting the global "dumbing down" of internet audiences but is also actively encouraging it.
I am not a conspiracy fun; there is no sinister design behind it (pun originally unitended) - unless you consider Google's harnessing the power of the growing functional illiteracy to generate ever more money for them sinister.

I do.


UPDATE:

I am sorry to report that the solutions presented above do NOT work in any of the browsers we use. After every restart, the cookies are reinstalled as soon as you hit the WWW. So much for "silent" experiment...

I'll continue to search for a solution.
And if you have one, do let us know.


ANOTHER UPDATE:

Apparently, the "Always on" is now to be - always on. Permanent.
If you dislike it, there is a petition you can sign and share.


And you can do what we've done: go off Google.
There are other options.

This is one:

FREE RICE

And this is another one (unlimited):

GOOD SEARCH

And of course, there is the (ever increasingly attractive-looking) Bing:

The BING

I know this much: shrugging is NOT an option for us here.

The Little Green Stick

Underrated websites, I

Have you ever felt the need to send a beautiful photo or picture in the guise of a custom-made ecard?

If so, you probably found, sooner or later, that there are very few sites that offer a simple customisation procedure and non-cheesy editing - AND actually deliver (pun intended)?

We discovered this site a few months ago - and we thought (still do) that it's absolutely superb.

ECARDSTER

The editing is extremely simple, it offers a good selection of styles, the end result looks quite elegant and striking, not cheesy at all (although that would depend on the picture, I imagine) - and the notification is delivered immediately.
(When I say "immediately", I mean quicker than it takes one to close the browser tab and return to the inbox.)

Also, we haven't noticed any spyware or malware or any problems after visiting it, both as senders and as recipients.

Furthermore, you can add your images to the (so far rather modest) gallery if you wish.
(To do so, tick the appropriate box. And by the way, do NOT tick it if the image you're using isn't yours to give!)

Needless to say, the use of the website is absolutely free of charge.
Also, you don't need tor register to use it.

And yet, apparently, only about 11 ecards a day are sent from this site (as per their stats).
Why?
Who knows.
Perhaps the marketing is faulty.

But as long as it stays as it is, we will be glad to use it.


N.B. None of the team members of this blog, or any of its associate blogs, is in any way associated with either the website or its owners. We simply like it and think other people should know about it.

A sample ecard from Ecardster

P.S. The "I" in the title doesn't refer to yours truly (even in a modestly phrased plural) but rather to the fact that collectively we have encountered quite a few websites that should be more visited than they are, so wel'll probably be adding to this category.

A little beauty goes a long way...

Daffodils that come before the swallow dares
and take the winds of March with beauty...

William Shakespeare, The Winter's Tale, scene IV (The Shepherd's Cottage)




To be seen here.

I also like this blog entry (and the photo):

March is Autumn, March is Spring

No wonder the Latin name of the daffodil is - Narcissus poeticus... :)

The Answer

Looking for love online? Don't smile!

If you're a man, that is.
And don't look into the camera.


For women, the advice is: don't post pictures of yourself showcasing your physical "assets" (or the lack thereof, I'd imagine). Instead post photos that show you engaging in some "fun" activity, such as "vacationing in Brazil or strumming a guitar".


I don't like to smile at a camera; I don't like looking into a camera - in fact, I don't even like being anywhere near a camera... I also don't strum guitars; I don't even like guitars, unless they are in the hands of the likes of Paco de Lucia and such. And while on vacation, I do not take photos of myself (or any photos at all, for that matter).


Then again, I am not looking for "love" or romance, either online or offline, so - who cares?
But if you are, you might profit from this recent article from the New York Times:

Looking for a date?

Oh, and don't use terms like "beautiful" or "cutie" (duh - I could have told you that one!). Use "cool" (ugh) or "fascinating" instead.


It's not psychology, say the authors of the website who came up with these findings. It's math.
(You see, it is useful in daily life, after all!)

The Emperor's new clothes are the latest fashion

We've been thinking a lot about our few but faithful followers these days. We think people deserve more than just occasional rants.

So, on a whim I've decided to share with you some of my more intimate work. My fiction is rather long, but I thought perhaps an excerpt from a poem of mine, a musing about the meaning of life itself, might compensate you - however modestly - for your kind attention and time.

Here it goes.

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, it is a consummation
Devoutly to be wished.

(It's just a short excerpt, the poem is actually quite long. My editor wants me to shorten and "streamline" it, as she calls it, but it's my integrity what's on the line, so I'd rather leave it as it is.

We also haven't decided on the title yet. I want something timelessly evocative, she wants something "Gothic-sexy", as she calls it, like The Master of Elsinore Castle.
I'll let you know when we have decided.)

You may have noticed the language is a whiff archaic.
Your observation is quite correct: I wanted to convey the time-transcending nature of such questions.

To those among you particularly sensitive to aesthetics it may even sound vaguely familiar.
Well. that's how good I am (even if I say so myself). What I wanted to achieve is the effect of a post-postmodern pastiche, if you will, using historic formulae to accentuate the timelessness of the main theme.
Was I successful?
You be the judge.



What has gotten into me, you ask...?
Inspiration, my friend.
And being the intellectually honest creator that I am, I don't mind sharing its source with you.
It was an email discussing originality and the current state of literacy, sent by a forget-me-not we haven't seen in quite a while now (so her blog in this blogofleet is temporarily even off-view).

The email included a link to a complaint board of a site called Triond, where apparently people can publish their texts (of all sorts) in exchange for pennies. (And glory, of course, but that's a given.)
Here is the link:

Edgar Allen [sic] Poe plagiarized due to lazyness [sic]

-->

I would recommend reading it (it's very short), but here's the gist: a member published Poe's poem The Raven as if it were his own. Not one comma was altered.

Since the author - not Poe, the other one - apparently wasn't given the chance to speak for himself, I can only speculate about his reasons.
Perhaps - and I really mean this - he intended it as a "statement" of some kind.
(After all, Poe himself was accused of plagiarising another author, precisely with this poem - and Poe in his turn accused Longfellow of plagiarising him. For more on Poe - and plagiarism - see Why Is Plagiarism Bad?)

Or maybe it was an experiment - to see how long it would take people to notice.

Or maybe he acted out the ideal of J. L. Borges' dreamed-of writer and simply rewrote not Don Quijote but Poe's poem on his own, out of his own fresh intent and inspiration. (You really should read Borges - he expressed it much better than I.)

Or perhaps he belongs to the "different generation, one that freely mixes and matches from the whirring flood of information across new and old media, to create something new"...
That is how another plagiator, a financially and critically very successful one, recently explained her unacknowledged borrowing from a less lucky writer.

I have a few questions regarding this latter case. Like, her "generation" being different... different from what?
From the "generations" who knew how to read and write?

“There’s no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity,” said she, when questioned about her perceived lack of originality.

Well said.
(And probably plundered from someone else, too.)

I am all for authenticity.
But shouldn't authentically re-writing someone else's authenticity involve at least an original - sorry, authentic - nod to the source?
The first authentic author could be made into a character in the work of the second authentic writer; or a character in the latter's work could quote her/him. Or something else. There are many ways of incorporating the sources of one's authenticity into a work. Surely a writer should have no problems with finding an adequate one?

I know, I know: I am missing the point - the point being that authenticity needs no nitpicking listing of sources... right?
In principle, I agree; but if you don't mind, I'll wait for the proponents of authenticity to waive their copyrights and their royalties, being as they are incompatible with such a democratically promiscuous view of verbal intercourse.

As I said, I don't know what Poe II would have to say for himself, he was never given the chance. But based on what the Berlinese author above had to say in her defence, I believe the actions of these mavericks of authenticity really do speak louder than the words they took out of someone else's mouth: they speak of a world where it took weeks for a reader or two among the hundreds who visit a website to recognise one of Poe's most famous poems - and none of those who noticed it were the editors of the publishing site.

And there is authenticity in the actions of these scribes (it is not an insult but rather an accurate description of their activity, from a time when there was a perception that writing down is not automatically the same as writing): they reveal a multitude of facets borrowed to act in place of a personal face. They reveal the horizon, the inexistent far shores, of a world where everything has been deconstructed to death, including personal responsibility and a sense of value - the value of the past, of actions past, of lives past, of the common experience accumulated through millenia.
Everything has been gleefully relativised in this "People's Century" of ours - and now the Gutenberg Galaxy itself is fast fading into the darkness whence it came.

Then again, there is a silver (thirty pieces worth of it) lining to this abysmal darkness: this way we get to read - and write - everything all over again. It may not be long before we even get - oh joy! - to make fire from scratch.

That's the glory of an age when TXTing is the lingua franca: you get to discover all sorts of untold beauties as if it were for the first time.

Much like with Alzheimer's, I am told.



IF YOU LIKED THIS, YOU MIGHT ENJOY:
The Code

(But if you liked Dan Brown, you probably won't. :)

Buzz Off, Google!

OR

the Terror of Social Networking

A few days ago I read a headline that made my heart jump, if only for a second (I've become quite cynical since Google has become a part of my life):

Google to Make Gmail More Social

For a brief second I thought - hoped against hope - that Gmail was to FINALLY make itself more presentable. Because I am social enough: I know how to communicate, both online and offline, with people I want to socialise with; I still know how to read and write, so I don't need Google to do it for me (as I am sure - mark my words! - that will be their next development).

What I want is to be able to reply to messages without having to drag the (literally) entire history of the conversation in tow; what I want is to make my friends partake in some of the beauties I find online without having to send every blasted picture as an attachment.
I also like nice backgrounds, nice fonts, etc. - you know, superfluous bourgeois aesthetics like that.
(And yes, you can do that with other email clients.
But we are talking about Google and Gmail here - and Gmail is actually one of the most freequently used email applications nowadays.)

As I said, I only entertained such hopes for a fraction of a second - the time it takes my idealistic faith in people and progress to die these days.

As it turned out, the "more social" feature was yet another useless gadget, intended to promote - or rather, cash on - "social networking" (an epidemic condition that is afflicting all too many websites, includes some that I would never have thought capable of stooping that low).

And today, as I logged in, I was greeted by a screen prodding me to "check out" the Buzz.
I didn't and won't.
But here's what it is supposed to achieve:

"Everything in one place Follow your friends and get recommended buzz from others — all within Google Mail."


What does "everything in one place" mean?
Are they actually implying people's social lives (or just life in general) have gotten so small and two-dimensional they can be kept tidy and controlled via a gadget?
(I believe they are implying that.)

And what the heck does "follow" mean, in the first place?
I already know what my friends are up to - as much as they want me to know about their activities. The same goes for their "following" me.

And I get all the "buzz" I need from people I actually care about, both online and offline. Why should I care about the "buzz"(whatever that means) of people I don't even know?

According to a very recent poll, most people are more or less"okay" with Buzz.
Around 17% "love" it.
Around 7% "hate" it.
(The results are changing all the time, so be sure to check the current results.)

If you are one of those who hate it, here's what you can do about it:

Turn off Buzz or remove Buzz updates from your mailbox

(Hint: just look at the very bottom of your Gmail page.)

That should help you to ignore it - which is always the best policy, especially when money (in return for your attention) is involved.


I bet you're left with the feeling that I actually hate Google.
I don't; it doesn't mean enough for me to hate it.

I despise it, and that's not a word I use lightly.
I despise it because it has stooped down to the lowest common denominator - in exchange for money, naturally - and is now even contributing, very actively and quite consciously, to the dumbing down of the world. (See also Google's Goggles ogling at you.)


But of course, the Buzz and Gmail's idiotic attempts to get "more social" are only the top of the iceberg.
More on that in the near future.



P.S. And don't forget to check for occasional edits.
If you know me... you know me. ;)

The unbearable lightness of believing

Judging by the amount of visits (and a few emails) the previous post created a minor stir.

Good.
That was its purpose.

Still, I feel it's worth elaborating on just little bit further.

If a visitor from another planet (let's say many regions in Africa where there is no internet, not to mention some other essential commodities) took a virtual stroll around the WWW (or any library), one of the first things s/he would notice would probably be the overabundance of links, websites, articles, books containing the following tags/keywords: LOA, law of attraction, manifesting, reality creation... and so on.

Assuming s/he knew what they mean, s/he could be forgiven for thinking either that we are a race of turbo manifesters... or that we aren't. Especially that we aren't. People usually look for what they DON'T have.

Everyone seems to KNOW the principle underlying the recent deluge of The Secret-emulators (The Secret, naturally, being nothing but an emulation- and not really a very accomplished one - itself).
And yet presses are spewing out ever new batches of books hammering the same idea under many different names even as we speak.

Why?

Well, the answer is rather obvious, but to illustrate it let me quote a real post, typical of the mentality underlying this abundance of books on abundance:


"I was looking for a book akin to [insert name of any "manifestation" guru, past or present] when I came across [as above]."


Why?

If this person was looking for a book akin to a certain other book, then it's safe to assume s/he liked that first book.
Why, then, did s/he need yet another book telling her basically the same things as the first one?

Either because s/he was not convinced - or because it didn't "work".

Why, then, look for more of the same?

Because this reader - and millions like him or her - is missing the one key (the ignition key!) that makes it all work and without which none of it can work.

FAITH

If you read carefully - or even diagonally, I suppose - through all the books, articles and websites about "reality creation", you may notice that they all talk about the same thing, offering only variants, ever different approaches to CONVINCE yourself about the efficacity of having faith.
In other words, they are offering you methods to build faith in that having faith really works.

And none of them seem to work (except for a silent minority, I suppose).

If people really believed in their own power to co-create reality, no such books would have been needed for the past 2000 years - the approximate time that has elapsed since the following words - among many others - were written for everyone to hear:

"Nothing is impossible to him who believes"

Is there a clearer, more explicit declaration of man's power - and right - to co-create reality, to achieve even the seemingly "impossible"?

No.
It's the essential idea that all "manifestation" books harp on, minus the tacky media marketing, the airy-fairy writing and the price tag.

But then, even Peter - the exemplary everyman (surely you don't think he was chosen as the first "pope" because he was such an outstandingly bright disciple, do you...?) - even Peter himself could not believe. He SAW Christ do mind-boggling miracles, he HEARD him (Him, not some priest) tell him again and again that he, Peter, could do anything Christ could - and more!
Heck, he even mustered enough faith to walk on water... until he remembered he "could not" do it and started to sink.

"You of little faith," said Christ, "why did you doubt?"

Indeed: why?*
Why did Peter doubt his ability to walk on water even after seeing that clearly he COULD do it?

Why do you?

Think about it until you get a clear answer as to whether you can believe - or not. Because if you don't, you might as well give the money (and time) you invest in "manifestation" books, CDs, DVDs and what-not, to charity. Or flush it down the drain, whichever you prefer.

On the bright side, you can start walking on water right NOW.
All you need to do is have faith in faith. Not rational, mental understanding or even "conviction" - no, I mean FAITH.

With it, nothing is impossible.
Without it, no technique will help you. Ever.



* Answer coming up soon.
As soon as you have thought about it yourself.

.-- .... .- - / -.-- --- ..- / ... . . / .. ... / .-- .... .- - / -.-- --- ..- / --. . -

(Image taken from here.)

... and NOW?

- --- / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . / - .... . / - .. - .-.. . --..-- / -.-. --- .--. -.-- / .. - / .- -. -.. / .--. .- ... - . / .. - / .... . .-. . .-.-.-

Today, every day, forever

© Illustris

... until the end of Times:

HAPPY BIRTHDAY

to the most glorious person in the world.

(Wherever you are, you know who you are.
Even though you were never quite aware
of your own glory and worth to others,
you should know who you are.

If you don't, we have failed you.)

Going green: Grow your own furniture

I once heard a story about one of my ancestors who loved birds so much that he had living trees transplanted - in huge pots and barrels - into a special room, so that his many domesticated (at least I hope so!) winged pets could fly around freely, as in a forest.
(I am assuming they did everything else "as in a forest", too, but let's not go there now. I wonder what the cleaner team's descendants are blogging about...)

Anyway, I was delighted when I heard this story, because as a child - being "young and heartless" - I had often thought of somehow doing the same thing. Not because of love of birds (I do love them dearly), but out of love for trees.
I am mad about trees. I love them and respect them and adore them in all but the "heathen" ways. If you ever want to impress me with flower shop gifts, don't bring me cut roses or even potted floral beauties - bring me a small tree in a pot!

And so, I am naturally attracted to everything and anything that has to do with trees as an active part of one's living environment.

Which is all the more reason why I was so surprised to find out that arborsculpture - sculptural shaping of trees - can be used to create furniture, gazebos, you-name-it (even jewelry!).

I mean, it is a thought that surely has crossed the mind of anyone who has ever sat comfortably on all sorts of natural improvised "seats", from tree roots to logs. But to find out that people actually do grow trees with a proper seating or habitational function in mind was somewhat startling.

Read about it here.

To see a number of fascinating traditional examples (mostly bridges) go here:

Living growing architecture

Here is a blog you can follow, with lots of good advice and fabulous examples of tree "architecture" worldwide.

And finally, here is a book you can buy:

I admit, I prefer sleek but comfortable modern furniture to any Louis.
But this is just enchanting.

And it is as "green" as it goes.

What the BLIP...?!

Don't get me wrong: I find excessive obsession with so called "privacy" ridiculous and only helpful as a possible aid to help you unmask your own deepest fears.

(Like, what EXACTLY do you fear would happen if somebody finds out certain of your personal facts or indulgences?
No, really: think about it! It would only matter if the "government" or whoever your pet foe is could actually do something that would impact your life negatively - i.e. something that would not be merely the consequence of your perception of your hypothetical Self in the hypothetical eyes of the Others.
If they could do it, then that usurped power is something you - and the Others - definitely should fight. If they couldn't - if it's all simply a matter of your comfortable perception of your Self as a public person - then the problem lies in you.)

Even more ridiculous is the apparent facility which many people disclose their sex life (real or fictitious) with - but God forbid they should be asked how much they earn! (At least it shows you what really matters to them...)

But who the blip would be as stupid as to broadcast what they are buying, and when, and how much it cost?

My guess is... many.
Wanna bet?

Tell the whole world what you're buying... and in real time, too!

The author of the article hyperlinked above "caught up with Kaplan" (the father of this Frankenstein's bride) "to talk about how Blippy could become a new form of advertising and why no purchase -- even revealing ones -- should be embarrassing to share."

And here's the purpose of the thingy, in a nutshell:

What's the point of Blippy?

Kaplan: Without getting too philosophical, I'll just start at the beginning. The big answer is: We don't know, which I think is funny but is also indicative of what we're trying to do.

Well, I agree: that wasn't too philosophical.
(Not even a little bit, for that matter.)

But the nasty thing about philosophy is that it tends to reveal itself, whether you intend it or not.

"Fun" is the name of the game.

It is true, however, that once you have lost everything (private)... you have nothing left to fear.
Or to lose.

Exhibitionism is the new spirituality.

The Forgotten Language of Creation

I found this website while rummaging through my bookmarks reviewed it... and just had to share it. It's about numbers and their role - possibly much more than just metaphorical - in Creation.

I hope you enjoy it as much I have.

The Forgotten Language of Creation

(BTW, it's based on the Qabbalah.
Do not be afraid of it: there is no mention of Madonna - not that there is anything wrong with her - or any "recruitment" material, although it is a part of a commercial site offering certain services.)

Rohmer and I

Another peripheral fixture of my life gone.
Eric Rohmer.

I didn't even know it, until today, when I visited one of my - our - favourite film sites (no, not IMDB - not even in the same neighbourhood as pitiful IMDB) and saw a blog entry about his passing, on the 11th of January.

It's funny, my relationship with Rohmer...
I seldom "agreed" with him - nor was I expected to - and he infuriated me much too often for comfort.
And yet, he won me over every time.
Long before I learnt anything substantial about him as a person I already felt towards him the sort of warm - non-reverential but profound - respect and genuine fondness one would feel towards a village philosopher that had been something of a rake in his younger days.
(N.B. Rohmer was neither, as far as I know, and this observation tells more about me than about him - of course.)
Or, much more accurately, the kind of friendly respect and fondness that I feel towards an impossibly intelligent and educated Jesuit priest of my acquaintance, who knows more about Life and humanity than most rakes could ever hope to.

But there is more.

I suspect that much of the fuzzy pleasure (seemingly incongruous with his verbosely intellectual contemplation of life) that I always felt while watching Rohmer's films - and even before I watched them, simply anticipating them - is the reflected glow of a summer long ago, when I was only beginning to live life as I thought it should be lived. (I was wrong, BTW.)

Eric Rohmer's films - a retrospective - happened to be there as a backdrop.
Not "luscious" - just close enough to life, to my life, to lend it, my own life, the sort of cinematic quality that was the reflection of my own gaze.

I bet you have no idea what I am babbling about...
I do, if that's of any consolation. But when people and situations on which I relied to derive comfort from disappear - black out - from my life, I feel forlorn and I cannot write well.
I am not sure I even want to write "well". I am not sure I even know what to write.
I only know I have to put it in writing:

Eric Rohmer was a part of my life - a very inconspicuous but constant one - and now he is gone.

And I am still here.

Where am I?

The landscape around me has changed so much I can't recognise it anymore.
I don't want to recognise it anymore.

But I know - and Rohmer would probably disagree with me, violently! - there is, there must be, a silent secret soft spot in this landscape, among all these seemingly static forms and long-trodden paths, where a light unseen can penetrate the world and reveal it for the mirage it is.
And then, I can take the other road.
Exchange one mirage for another.

Pardonnez-moi, Monsieur Rohmer.
This wasn't supposed to be about me.
But of course, as always - it is.

Don't know what this is?

Adieu, Miep

Miep Gies has died, a month and two days shy of her 101st birthday.

I had the good fortune of exchanging a few letters with her in the late 1990s.

She never liked being called a "hero".
I can understand that. I agree with her that what she did is what any human being should do - no more, no less.

She was a lady.
What a lady!

But for some strange reason what I remember most fondly - apart from her being the protector of Anne Frank and the custodian of her diary before it was published - is that she was once the "best Charleston dancer in Amsterdam".
(You can take a girl out of Vienna, but you can't take Vienna out of a girl. :)

And why not?
It is a joyful heart what makes us want to dance.

There is little room for darkness in a joyful heart, and no room at all for evil.
A joyful heart doesn't need eyes to see, or ears to hear.

The song coming from a joyful heart is possibly the best prayer there is.
And I suspect the dance steps dictated by a joyful heart lead directly to paradise, wherever it is.


So, Miep, here is something just for you...

Catch your breath: Catch Music

We just found the most wonderful relaxing video game.
(And who knows how many hundreds of thousands of people have found it, like, two years ago...)

It's NOT for those who like aggressive gaming, loud or weird (or both) audio effects, or story lines that involve blood and gore. Or even characters, for that matter.

It is also not for people who are irritated by piano music.
(Oh yes, they exist.)

But if you fancy a few minutes of real relaxation, to collect your thoughts - or to scatter them - you might want to give it a try.


All you have to remember is:

YELLOW SHAPES ARE GOOD,
RED SHAPES ARE BAD,

and

PURPLE SHAPES ARE...

well, you'll see.

You can play it right here, if you want.
(Sorry for the momentarily disappearing sidebar.
There's nothing interesting there, anyway.)

But because it was originally - i.e. three or four "forward" emails ago - found through BonteGames (a treasure trove of really cool video games!), we think it's only fair to mention it. (And you can find the original Music Catch I here.)


Enjoy.
Relax.
Have fun.

This is "hilarious"!

... And after yesterday's sombre musing, perhaps a very welcome P.S.

Judge for yourself:

Gallery of "misused" quotation marks

(Found through The Cabinet, another of our recent new favourites.)


The only thing is, once you have had your laughs - plenty of them! :) - you cannot help yourself but try and mis-quote every other word...