<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
My comments are interlinear<br>
<br>
On 9/11/2011 11:13 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Isn't a world like "love" loaded with contradictory and
unclear meanings, but does that mean we have to reject it.</blockquote>
<br>
We would need to define or qualify the word "love" in many instances,
depending on the company and context in which we use it, and I think
that qualifying� or defining our use of the word "spirituality" is the
least we should do in� many contexts . Also, like spirituality, love is
often inadequately examined (to paraphrase Socrates, the unexamined
word is not worth uttering). But seriously, there are many pathologies
associated with both sexual and romantic love. In my opinion, a
majority of our species suffers from addiction to or unhealthy
obsession with sexual and/or romantic love at some stage in their
lives.� But what makes the term "spirituality" even more problematic
than "love" in many contexts is that it is indeed a "hot button" word
for many in the atheist/agnostic/skeptic/free-thought/science community.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> I think Amaia puts it well, it's about the relation with
what surpasses us as human ego's, what I have called before our
relation with "all that is". I'm a� monophysicist pretty much myself,
i.e. there is only one reality, one 'stuff', and the supernatural
means, "even more natural" or super-nature ... However, I suspend my
disbelief into the extent of that 'nature', and accept that there are
man things we don't know, many things that may overturn our current
understanding. We need the eye of matter to understand our natural
world, the eye of the mind to understand each other and human culture,
and the eye of the spirit to understand the numinous experiences that
are beyond language.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
Richard, you say all is interconnected and that is science, and I
agree, but don't you see the 'sea' of difference between understanding
that mentally, and on the other hand, to experience this directly,
mystically, gnostically? </blockquote>
<br>
Of course. There is also a sea of difference between Newton seeing the
apple fall from the tree and his laws of gravity, which have themselves
had to be modified over time. Part of what I'm saying is that the
unexamined life is not worth living, and I know you agree with that.
The more we kick our experiences around and around between all our ways
of knowing, the less skewed or biased our interpretation will be. This
also applies to scientism, rationalism, and philosophism (meaning the
exclusion of experience or empirical data that do not conform to the
paradigm). We fully agree on this. Indeed, there may be just as much
pathology in science and philosophy as in spirituality.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">We can say that "all is part of life", but again, isn't
there a sea of difference between understanding this mentally, i.e.
still separately as a watching and conversing mind, and/or to
experience this directly, as a shaman might.</blockquote>
<br>
I behold a sunset. I am moved esthetically and emotionally, and perhaps
in other ways for which "naturalistic spirituality" might serve as a
place holder for other words we don't have for responses of our
organism that are still insufficiently examined. I'm not even saying
that we can't value the sunset without examining our experience at all.
But if someone tells me the sunset moves them spiritually, I probably
know less than if they say it moves them esthetically or emotionally.
Most people would just accept the spiritual explanation as if that
meant the same thing to everyone. If you said you love the sunset,
depending on the context I might say "yeah, me too" or I might ask
"why?", or "what do you love about it?," or "what do you mean?, or "why
don't you marry it?"<br>
<br>
Part of the ordinary experience of every naturalist or ecologist
working with nature and contemplating the complex inter-dependencies,
forms, and phenomena is deeply aesthetic and emotional, but I see
little utility in calling it spiritual. That seems in such cases like a
superfluous word.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> We can either decide, if we do not experience this
directly, to be a 'hoax', or we can accept that there is a real
experience there, there is a 'there' there. Now, we always can return
to the eye of the mind, i.e. "what does it all mean, for us", and we
can return to the eye of matter, what is really the material "there"
that is there, and as� you know, we know have at least 30 years of
investigating the physical correlates of such experiences, and we now
know that they are effectively there. </blockquote>
<br>
Agreed<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">But, this is crucial, just as we cannot reduce the
'meaning' of skakespeare by the physical qualities of the ink on paper,</blockquote>
<br>
This is a bad example for your position. Meaning is only a relevant
word in the context of a conscious entity. The ink on paper only has
meaning when it is given such by the reader. We have learned a great
deal about how all that works, and have no good reason to think that
any of the stuff we don't know about it yet is not just as naturalistic
as what we already know. When it comes right down to it, there is no
good, logical, persuasive way to assert that anything unknown or
mysterious is unnatural, because of the very lack of explanatory
evidence that makes it a mystery. I have been experiencing and
witnessing real mysterious phenomena for decades and have not seen,
heard, nor read any convincing evidence that anything that exists or
anything that is real is unnatural. Thus one of my objections to the
very prevalent "supernatural" or dualistic connotation of the word
spiritual.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> or the brainwaves of the author or reader</blockquote>
<br>
We are getting more information from brainwaves all the time but they
are only a crude window into the mind. However, we have learned enough
through various means to anticipate that the vast majority if not all
cognitive functions have physical correlates, as you said earlier.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">, similarly, we can not reduce the experience of Tibetan
monks, to just the physical correlates that can be shown to occur in
their brains.</blockquote>
<br>
Not yet. That will require full visibility into all levels of brain
function and a way to "play back" these recorded correlates into
another brain to verify that the experience induced by the recording is
as complete as the original. I predict that some day it will be
demonstrated so. I'd guess that to occur around 2040. I hope I'll live
to experience high-fidelity brain recordings.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> Hence the dialogue is always between those three levels,
that of understanding material laws, that of understanding human
meaning, and that of experiencing directly the transformative power of
spiritual experiences. </blockquote>
<br>
In that scenario I'm not sure I see any difference between direct
spiritual experience and, say, direct experience with a microscope.
Experience with microscopes is also transformative.� Direct experience
is integral to science, and science is transformative, too. So is
torture. (Different strokes....)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">That doesn't require anyone to believe anything said by
such experiencer, but only, if we want, to follow the injunctions that
may lead to those occuring in us as well. There is no obligation, but
in my mind, there should also not be a rejection.</blockquote>
<br>
I do not reject the mysterious, the unknown, or the unexplained. I only
reject what empirical evidence, either first hand or acquired from
reliable sources, convinces me to reject. However, a combination of
personal experience and scholarship leads me to reject many past and
current explanations of mysterious phenomena, even if I do not yet have
a better explanation (although in quite a few cases I do have better
explanations than those that are common in the public and among my
peers).<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> To repeat, the secular world does not offer anything
remotely similar to such experiences of the human bodymind, but have
occured repeatedly throughout the ages to those who are willing to
following such trainings and injunctions.</blockquote>
<br>
I disagree. Many (perhaps all) altered states of consciousness can be
induced by secular means free of any association with religious or
spiritual trappings. What the religious and spiritual terminologies,
narratives, rituals, sacraments, art, architecture, etc. mostly seem to
contribute is to make a practice or procedure more interesting,
entertaining, or emotionally compelling (sometimes frightening) to
many. This is a way of exploiting human nature.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"> Apart from the rejection of the semantics of the concept
of spirit and spirituality, it is now a historical time to go beyond
the rejection of 19th century rationalism against anything that is not
purely 'rational', to a time of integration and dialogue between the
various levels of the human being.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's what I'm all up in here about. My rational arguments would not
be what they are without decades of practical experience and
observation of all things mystical and shamanistic from a highly open
and sympathetic point of view. I do not reject the experience, but I do
reject many of the common interpretations of it.<br>
<br>
PR<br>
<br>
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Amaia Arcos <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:amaia.arcos@googlemail.com">amaia.arcos@googlemail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Dear
PR,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I really am looking forward to reading your original post
properly and your response here and come back to it. Ideally it would
be done over coffee, attended by anyone who might be interested - there
would be 3 of us for sure - but if it needs to be typed, typed it will
have to be.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Amaia, I would very much love to be sipping coffee with you, Michel and
others as we discuss this.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>I am time-tied right now but coming back to supernatural and
its meaning.. I am a massive fan of playing with language, accepting
new meaning for words before they even become mainstream, etc, not a
"proper" language fascist in the slightest, quite the opposite, I love
being informal with it but to decide that something as simple as a
prefix (super) is going to mean exactly the opposite of what it means
in just one particular case.. To me it is a pretty obvious fallacy. And
one used to reject something one cannot even begin to comprehend, hence
the need to reject it. Arrogance at its best in my opinion.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm fine with rejecting the word supernatural or using it for the
opposite of its current definition. All we need to do is take the
current definition of supernatural and give it a different name and
then get everybody to look up the new word and use it instead of
supernatural. I'm fine with that even though I will then need to do a
search and replace on all my writing.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also, I am starting to wonder, this is not so much about
rejecting spiritual experiences/realities but about semantics, right? </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
One of my main issues is the semantic one, especially the "hot button"
aspect for some communities of interpretation.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>I don't know, but who cares what people mean and/or if it
differs in its characterisation? I know my idea of spirituality is very
different to that of an orthodox Muslim or Catholic, or even a Hindu or
a Buddhist, but if I am having a conversation with one of them and look
into their eyes, we both see/feel we believe and respect God/higher
force(s), I really feel no need for them to understand
God/souls/spirituality as I understand "it". I think the sense of
respect for a higher force that rules over us and is nothing but love
is the same. I also think it is the same as your scientific acceptance
that all is interconnected.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There are some situations when all you really care about is that
everybody smiles and nods. In those situations I don't care what words
people use. I'll smile and nod, too. I didn't take this list as such a
context. This kind of venue leans, I think, towards the interplay of
ideas and points of view to refine them. Sometimes the process is
conflictual, sometimes it is like sitting in a circle thrashing and
winnowing wheat and singing songs.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div> The only thing we might differ in is the level of power,
control and understanding man (rational mind) has. To decide we are the
measure of all things is pretty crazy in my opinion :)</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am for maximizing the utility of our bodies, brains, and language,
not some kind of grand conquest or contest or anthropomorphic
masturbation. My ego is old and feeble.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Disclaimer: I have been a terribly arrogant skeptic all of my
life up until fairly recently when "exotism" took over my life. I have
fought it for the longest time, because I could not accept that I was
starting to believe (with all my soul) what I had consistently rejected
for so long. (Just to make clear that I have not grown up blindly
believing in faith and superstition). I now accept I am not the centre
of the universe and feel extremely liberated by it all to be honest.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
For one who grew up as a skeptic, belief is the first step on the
journey, not the destination. For one who grew up as a believer, as I
did, rejection is the fist step of the journey, not the destination.<br>
<br>
I salute all those on the great journey.<br>
<br>
PR<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAK_2xiJ6-LfALbxO-SZucnauRkdGGHvDiUhEXvSr9C_jfHZiPg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 12 September 2011 01:34, Poor Richard <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:poor_richard@att.net" target="_blank">poor_richard@att.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
My responses are interlinear...
<div><br>
<br>
On 9/11/2011 2:41 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
discussion Poor Richard's blogpost:<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Amaia Arcos</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:amaia.arcos@googlemail.com"
target="_blank">amaia.arcos@googlemail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:00 AM<br>
Subject: Re: is there no p2p spirituality because there is no
spirituality<br>
To: Michel Bauwens <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
I wish I had a printer so that I could see this article on paper and
make notes on the side. From glancing over it:<br>
<br>
<i>I lean towards natural causes, even if those causes turn out
to be
very subtle and perhaps very surprising.�</i>(when talking about his
"exotic" experiences) > eingh, spirituality is as natural as nature
itself, not following.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
My first problem with the term "spirituality" is semantic. I am
interested in <span><span>developing and promoting terminology that
would carry more "invariant meaning across the global communities of
interpretation"</span></span> (a phrase I'm quoting from a FB� post by
Jonny Cache).<br>
<br>
The usage of the term "spirituality" has a long history. Both its
historical and current usage by many implies a connotation of the
supernatural or things outside the natural world. That's one problem I
have with it, based on my skepticism toward mind-body dualism and
natural-supernatural dualism. Amaia's comment above informally
addresses this issue. I, like Amaia perhaps, consider many of the
things implied by the term "spirit" to be part of nature. But others
either imply or may infer a natural-supernatural dichotomy. This makes
the term too ambiguous and "loaded" for me.<br>
<br>
Some use "spirituality" as a broad basket of ideas such as reverence
for all life, the inter-relatedness of all life, altruism, morality,�
conscience, love of others, self-love, selflessness, virtue, etc. All
these ideas have numerous different forms of expression in a variety of
different "communities of interpretation" including current and past
religious traditions as well as academic and secular bodies of
knowledge.<br>
<br>
I think it is fair to say that the terms spirit, spiritual, and
spirituality actually mean something different to each person who uses
them, and one person often means different things at different times.
That is actually much of thier appeal sometimes. Spirituality is a word
you can use in mixed communities of interpretation to refer to high,
noble, or virtuous aspects of human nature in a very generic,
non-sectarian way. I don't object to its deliberately ambiguous use in
that way as a "bridge" between diverse communities of interpretation
when it is used to open common ground-- if further along in the process
we intend to make a transition to less nebulous or ambiguous terms.
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
Yes, I am very aware the term "supernatural" exists, which if analysed
means exactly the opposite of how people use it or the dictionary
defines it. Super is a prefix that denotes "a lot of ", according to
the same dictionary it means "specially/particularly" so supernatural,
if anything, means very natural, a lot of natural,
specially/particularly natural. And that is what spirituality is,
precisely. Super-mega-natural.</div>
<div><br>
That "rational" humans decided to go against their own logic rules in
language in order to make sure they were seen as rejecting stuff they
could not begin to comprehend is a complete different story.<br>
<br>
su�per�nat�u�ral<br>
adjective<br>
1.�of,�pertaining�to,�or�being�above�or�beyond�what�is�natural;
unexplainable�by�natural�law�or�phenomena;�abnormal.<br>
2.�of,�pertaining�to,�characteristic�of,�or�attributed�to�God�or�adeity.<br>
3.�of�a�superlative�degree;�preternatural:�a�missile�ofsupernatural�speed.<br>
4.�of,�pertaining�to,�or�attributed�to�ghosts,�goblins,�or�otherunearthly�beings;�eerie;�occult.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Language has not been engineered in a lab. It has evolved organically.
I agree that "supernatural" could logically be defined or taken to mean
the opposite of what it is commonly defined and taken to mean. However,
as commonly used, it is far less ambiguous than spiritual.<br>
<br>
The words nature and natural are not without problems, too. Some
(myself included) often use nature to mean all that exists, while
others exclude man, god(s), ideas, man-made products, etc. from the
realm of nature. It's hard to avoid using "natural" to distinguish
things that are man-made from those that are not, but it has become all
but meaningless on food package labeling. I often use the form
"naturalistic" instead of natural to reduce some of the ambiguity.<br>
<br>
My main point would be that if we are trying to discuss anything in an
even modestly formal or precise way, it is probably incumbent on us to
give a brief definition of what we mean by the word "spirituality" if
we choose to use it. My main objection to the word is that it often
obfuscates meanings rather than conveying them. It is my opinion that
some people use the word "spiritual" because it obfuscates their own
specific beliefs, beliefs that might prove less defensible, even to
themselves,� if expressed more precisely.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
PR</font>
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
On 9 September 2011 04:06, Michel Bauwens <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:michel@p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">michel@p2pfoundation.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/"
target="_blank">http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/spiritual-new-supernatural/</a><br>
><br>
> article via Poor Richard ...<br>
><br>
> Michel<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> P2P Foundation: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>�
-
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net"
target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
><br>
> Connect: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>;
Discuss:�<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation"
target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
> Updates: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>;
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
�We would think and live better and be closer to our purpose as humans
if we moved continuously on foot across the surface of the earth� Bruce
Chatwin<br>
</font></div>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
P2P Foundation: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>�
-
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net"
target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>
Connect: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com"
target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss:�<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation"
target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a>
<div><br>
Updates: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
<div>
<div class="h5">�We would think and live better and be closer to
our purpose as humans if we moved continuously on foot across the
surface of the earth� Bruce Chatwin<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
P2P Foundation: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>�
- <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net"
target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>
Connect: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com"
target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss:�<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation"
target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a>
<div><br>
Updates: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens"
target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>