Once personal focus changes, finding an answer to whatever is sought loses its obsessiveness, frequently suggesting another path with additional questions that redefine the search. Where the quest leads, perhaps to an insight or a destination just out of reach, depends on how the concept of Infinity is interpreted.

Although physical laws are viewed as immutable, perhaps the folly of curiosity is entertaining the possibility of finding a solution for anything. The physics distinctively experienced have the potential for alteration, depending on where one is positioned in relation to everything else (perspective), a contradiction of sorts and a point often seen as a cliche, a meaning lost within the subtle difference between “a limitation” and “a boundary”.

The first is self-imposed, based on lost confidence from a forgotten dream, a consequence of habits’ causality, perpetuated by circular thinking. The latter contains a larger collective connotation such as the boundary of human comprehension, capable of being rethought as knowledge expands.

Consciousness and self-awareness, both dependent on the dynamics of the conditions perceived, exclude all else, a casualty suggesting that sentience is a milestone of growth that could be better associated relatively, a correlation rather than an exact construction. The problem is defining what it is all relative to. A dilemma without a scientific solution, divinely inspired by spiritual components, unrelated to religious rhetoric.

Contained within defined possibilities are those that stretch the imagination to reach beyond the gleaming stars, open to the very things that reason mocks, an inventive formula revealing “things” that exist hidden within and beyond the boundaries of the five senses.

Motivation and drive, the positive side of compulsion, compete with obsession for their place within the creative impulses, seen externally as pathological especially by those devoid of curiosity.

A reasonable approach might be to learn about surrounding levels of existence even if the connection remains unseen and held with uncertainty using a  sense that reveals the presence of something without necessarily knowing what its substance contains, a basis of intuition.

Although its green, nice to look at and fun to count, the US dollar has no intrinsic value. As an illustration of money, it’s just printed paper representing an IOU in lieu of some societal value. In fact, money everywhere has the same purpose, of easily providing purchasing power to whoever has it, while being a source of envy for those who don’t.

Most of history, and politics, issues of war, civil unrest and peace involve money somewhere in the mix as the causal factor of conflict even if no one is around to identify the transaction. Arguments often arise between nations when formulas are created to measure one countries’ currency in relation to another. Many cultures define success as the ability to get as much of it than is needed, while each generation passes down the misguided notion that “security” is synonymous with possessing it.

The idea that, suffering along the way to obtaining money will somehow teach the value of having it, has become more wishful thinking than a golden rule, since greed and temptation for an easy buck seems to be everywhere. What happened to the idea that self-confidence in one’s own ability to find a solution to whatever uncertainty presents is where the nature of true security lies.

People with “no money” usually fare better during economic downturns than those who have more than they know what to do with, as long as they have access to good education which translates into a level playing field. For them, ingenuity is the way of survival rather than spending their lives obsessing over how to generate more and discover ways to avoid losing it by inventing ways to keeping track of it.

Perhaps finding another way to engage goods and services is possible if money were totally abolished, as in the Star Trek Universe of the Twenty-Fourth Century, where society provides for all needs effortlessly allowing everyone to be creative and focus on higher pursuits. It sounds wonderful but removes incentives and the need for personal motivation, not necessarily a good thing for a balanced equation. Conservative Republicans might add their two cents, “It’s a bit too socialistic.”

Maybe science could eventually invent the ‘Duplicator’ to make everything out of nothing, so no one has to worry about anything, creating another form of a classless society, eliminating the need for competition. But wait, this is not a credible option since matter, according to Physics, can neither be created nor destroyed. However, if one is able to think outside the box, other alternatives will make it possible one day to lose money happily with a smile.

There is nothing like a good trivia to distract the mind from reality. Curiosity, somewhere is tapped by its interest in a provoking thought. Perhaps that is why Jeopardy, the game show, has been hugely popular for so long, widely considered the most intelligent format of all the game shows.

Trivia isn’t necessarily synonymous with “unimportant”, just unlikely to be known by the average person. It is often specific and familiar only to experts in the field who spend a great deal of time studying details.

In school, exams usually test students on exceptions, assuming that the general principles are already known and the only way to measure thoroughness is by questions involving unlikely anomalies that might occur.

Medicine for example requires absorption of large quantities of facts. It also assumes that an understanding of normal physiological processes (homeostasis) helps in speculating patho-physiological results when imbalance occurs, always supported or refuted by the scientific method. Comprehending anything that might affect harmony is probably not trivial when what is thought to be inconsequential, as a matter of perspective, can effect the outcome.

Economics was never my strong point. In school, it acted on me like an hypnotic sleeping pill. What I do remember is that I learned more about it from Psychology: I have something you want (commodity, service), you have something I want, lets negotiate terms and everyone is happy. Mix into the cauldron of some motivated competition and you have a crude description of supply side theory. Hopefully, all involved are in a growth cycle, generating GNP (Gross National Product), just another way of describing everything that everyone produces at the same time, measured in a particular geographic location over a specified time period. Perhaps a bit over simplistic, but also an honest attempt to understand the current quagmire of macabre economics, by reducing it to some kind of intelligible formula and decipher how this will all filter down to “me” or “us”. Remembering in the end that, “Time Will Tell”, the phrase passed down by the eldest of the family, one generation to the next as the answer that will provide all insight if you wait long enough till the effects of all this are finally felt rather than anticipated.

Actually, it could have all worked, as long as the participants played by the same rules; another way of measuring the fairness necessary to create public trust. If some “structure” maintained oversight of the game, such as a parent monitoring their child, lovingly reinforcing the rules as their kid sway toward the right, or smacking them for not listening by thinking they were being slick when your head was turned. Otherwise, players, like children in a candy shop (perhaps Madonna’s) are left to their own devices to honor the rules though they owe accountability, not to the electorate or their mother, but to stockholders. Responsible self regulation is not possible without the public trust, defined by lessening the restrictions on growth, which doesn’t mean that mom stops observing what the kids are doing or that she ceases to worry that they won’t learn the lesson before the consequences become grave.

Anthropological evidence describes some form of selfishness or greed, in all cultures, as perspective that is limited and “self” becomes more defined. Assertiveness and self confidence is an appropriate response when it’s based on ego development, but the temptation to tilt the playing field (cheat) also exists as part of human nature and needs objective oversight.

The Private Sector is comprised of individuals with varying self interests who spend time hiring lawyers to test the rules and find loopholes. Republicans are “nuts” to think that the private sector could ever have regulated itself. Nor would any self respecting parent willingly leave their child on their own before they were sure they were capable of acting responsibly independently.

As Nana use to say in her broken English, “Everyone gotta be on the same page” and “you gotta have eyes behind your head”, but what would you do? I asked. “Gold and silver”, she responded gazing into the teacup, “even in ancient times that would be enough to ‘Greece’ up the market, especially when money ain’t worth the paper its printed on.” And then she added “Now keep your fingers outta the candy jar!” Good advice since no one seems to know how to clean up this mess.

Scholars of antiquity were often students of Alchemy, a controversial science steeped in Mysticism, ridiculed as an occult illusion with the grandiose notion of transmuting base metals into gold. Associated more with Astrology, Tarot Cards and divination, its credibility has suffered in modern times.

According to Wikipedia, many alchemists had profound impact on the scientific advancements of their time including ore testing and refining, metalworking, production of gunpowder, ink, dyes, paints, and cosmetics, to name a few. Certainly more kin to science than crystal ball gazing.

Gold is valuable because it’s a trace element, difficult to encounter, and soft enough to allow its artistic use in jewelry. It also has a nice shiny color. If a solution were found to transform anything into this economic prize, its commonality would detract from its perceived value.

Perhaps a natural evolution of viewing alchemy is also suggested in the intangible metaphysical notions of spiritual qualities expressed in metaphors throughout literature and poetry: the conscious ability to transform primal thoughts and feelings steeped with instinct and accumulated experience into the quest for discovery and perfection made possible by curiosity, the “Philosophers’ Stone“.

“You know we are living in a material world” is more than lyrics from Madonna’s signature song. It is something everyone is doing, consciously or not, molded by cultural impressions and symbols. The learned connotations suggest that limits can be broken by expanding imagination. A visualized horizon realized from the wisdom learned about the material world.

How soon children adapt to their external reality while developing cognitive skills is what allows them to comprehend their surroundings by mastering talents in what has been ascribed as geniuses. Walking at 6 months, talking in complete sentences at 18 months, or writing great works of music at 36 are early reflections of what is absorbed by the five senses, as the development of physical and mental coordination proceed.

Perhaps the purpose of a material existence is to learn the laws by which physicality is governed since being part of it is undeniable while knowing the difference between what is thought to be, from what really is, enhances knowledge. Everything that isn’t corporeal probably defines the ethereal without suggesting whether there is just one spiritual reality or many with infinite levels.

After the election, it occurred to me that I should read the constitution and clarify what my powers would be. It did no harm to explore being sworn in by the Chief Justice on a cold morning after a storm passed leaving a foot of snow. The stands where the ceremony would take place would be filled with politicians and dignitaries of all kind. The stars of Hollywood shining brightly through the rising sun, as the gods of myth watched. Warren, Jack, Barbara… I was planing to read Plutarch’s lives the week before, review the works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

I thought of the words of Lewis Carroll:
Alice came to the fork in the road. “Which road do I take?”
“Where do you want to go?” responded the Cheshire cat.
“I don’t know,”
“Then,” said the cat, “it doesn’t matter.”

I reflected on the wisdom of Ronald Laing “The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change; until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds.”

As I prepared to take the oath of office, hand over heart, the nurse came in and handed me the plastic cup with medications from the tray and a glass of water, and said “Here are your pills, G. W.”

Assuming that it would be possible to travel back in time, the present would have already been visited by someone from the future. Perhaps a possibility at a time when invention taps into the stream of ideas and discovers a way to do it.

The thought of realizing one of the great fantasies of the imagination ever envisioned is captivating. Going backward or forward in time would present opportunities not only to move beyond the constraints of contemporary events but portray the patterns that define how things that do occur develop from a cause and effect relationship (Karma) - issues of war and peace or causes of ecological changes. The great orations of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the opportunity to share the experience of seeing the premiere of Shakespeare’s plays acted for the first time with Queen Elizabeth I in the audience, would make it worth the trip.

H. G. Wells, in his masterpiece The Time Machine, speculated on the opportunities presented if a way could be devised to move through time into the future.

If Time, as the fourth dimension, describes movement of the three known dimensions through space, then any movement can only add to what already exists. Even moving backward is still moving from the present into the next moment which can only be the future, not the past.

It could only be possible to go back to what has previously occurred if we were able to subtract some of the present, enough to take us to the place that existed before the movement where the three dimensions in space intersected to become our current present.

If that was feasible, then going back to any given time would negate the memory of all that existed, from then to the present. So even if someone from the future came to the present, they wouldn’t recall being from the future.

The Mystery Of The Lost Pages Of H. G. Wells

1 - So we can stay in Iraq and invade Iran. The American way of life is so much more superior than anywhere else in the world, and we have millions of illegal aliens to prove it.

2 - We need a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, to insure that the Constitution is strictly interpreted and treated as an impediment to circumvent just like George W. Bush has done for the last 8 years. Besides, Justices Scalia and Thomas would say, “what the founding fathers didn’t literally spell out in the constitution, doesn’t exist.”

3 - Women should never be trusted to make decisions about their own body. It makes more sense for the Supreme Court and the government to decide that. Men are much more capable of making the right decision for women.

4 - Texas needs more billionaires. Protecting oil companies ability to manipulate the price of oil is far more important than securing the environment. It’s the American way.

5 - The public doesn’t deserve accessible Health care, let alone affordable drugs. Pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to charge whatever they want, advertise on TV and encourage patients to pressure their doctors to prescribe them. According to the drug companies, advertising is patient education. Now that is a logical self serving rationale.

6 - The FDA and EPA are useless obsolete organizations that should be abolished. They are bad for business. All that cheap crap from China is good for competition.

7 - Corporations should not be made to clean up any environmental damage they cause. If you want clean water, buy it in a bottle.

8 - If food is labeled as food, that should be enough for the public. Who needs to know if its been genetically altered, irradiated or even inspected. Isn’t life complicated enough?

9 - People should be allowed to invest their retirement funds in the stock market since everyone is economically sophisticated enough to know how the market works and no one knows better then the individual how to protect their money. After all, it’s not like you have to go to a financial adviser for advice. Everyone reads The Wall Street Journal, and if you lose it all on bad speculation, who cares, you can’t take it with you when die.

10 - The purpose of government is not to be a safety net, that’s socialism. If you fall through the cracks, tough luck. Don’t blame the government for your shortcomings.

11 - Kids should be in classrooms with a minimum of thirty students, so they can learn to fight for attention. This forges character.

12 - It’s common knowledge that you can’t trust a Black President, unless “he” is an ultra conservative, right-wing evangelical with decades of political experience. Even then it’s still pretty iffy.

13 - The Republicans have done a wonderful job in domestic and international affairs in the past 8 years. In fact they spend all their time trying to convince the public they deserve 4 more years. What do you think?

Negotiating life often requires a sophisticated sense of diplomacy. Knowing what you want to convey in the way it is intended, through words and deeds, accepting that how it is all interpreted must, in the end, be left to each individual.

Then, a ringing in the ear and a vision in mind’s eye and the wisdom of Mom, in image, appears as she cooks a boiling pot of pasta, wiping her brow from the heat of the steam in a ground floor flat in Rome, looking out the window onto the street, “Don’t take life so seriously. It’s all about tact. You hear what others say, listen to what they do and see beyond what they intend. Then you tell them what they want to hear and everyone is happy.”

I suppose politics, a private matter in a free society, entails compromises as in a parliamentary coalition or a two-party struggle between the appearance of adversarial positions. Personal attacks, a way of drawing attention to things more appropriate to the tabloids, unfortunately cater to the public fascination for rumor and all things representing the extreme range of personality in the hope of influencing choice.

Mom would say, “It’s all about power and greed. Everyone probably wants to know something to distract from the boredom of their own lives. So have an interesting life, asking ‘What’s wrong with the Enquirer? It helps pass the time at the checkout line of the supermarket.’”

Of course there are also the memorable words she uttered when her son was off to the army, “Be careful where you put it!“.