make a bucket

Is doing good the driver of progress and will help
us humans to survive longer than

we would have?

Will doing good
lead in the long run to a world
without war with education and tools for all.

In the past it was
“If you need a bucket, make a bucket.”

In a progressive future
“If you need a tool, ask for it.
And if we don’t have it, explain it,
and we’ll make one for you.”




Is it that we are not as healthy as we could be because of all the sugar we ingest? Is it that sugar (and potatoes, pasta, white bread, etc.) doesn’t keep us feeling full because we aren’t getting the nutrients we need? Does this stress the body by its trying to keep a healthy level of sugar in our blood?

So is now the only time we can invest in the future? Should we paint as vivid and detailed a picture of the future we desire as we are able to create? Will this picture, if vivid and detailed enough, give us the patience it will take to make our vision come true?

To get ahead in life, do we need an education good enough to allow us to find out what we will need to know in the future? To get this education do we have to pay the price in trust and patience?

Is this where a long-term vision which is vivid and detailed plays an important role? Is this the most important step in creating the patience that is necessary to make a desired future happen?

Is it that patience is the thing that will keep us working hard and giving up things we value for something in the future that we regard as more important or worthy?


the healthiest thing

Is the saying “time is money” just one tiny view of time? Is it that time is almost all that money isn’t?

Does time have length like physical space? Did time have a start? Or is it that time having a beginning is an idea? Did time begin and unroll in a long line until the present and then will extend in a long line going into the future until the universe is all cinders? Would time continue so that the cinders don’t disappear? If the long line isn’t time, what is it?

Is time’s length real or do we give it the idea of something with length?

Do we run back and forth along this line using the idea of length not realizing time has a depth? Is depth time’s true nature instead of length? Could time be both length and depth? Or have we invented and added length as a convenience, a tool so useful it would be unthinkable to lay it down? Could it be that time has only infinite depth? Is time the tiniest of vertical moments but not having actual width because nothing could fit into it?

What does time provide? Is time so deep and motionless that it gives everything an opportunity to be and change. Is our universe floating in a curve or fountain of time? Is time the isness, the nowness, the container?

Is time simply opportunity? If so, for what? Everything? Is opportunity the healthiest thing that can be offered?


It’s been said the purpose of science is to advance our knowledge. If so, how is this done? Is it necessary that one must live with uncertainty? Is it fun to live with doubt and not knowing for sure about a multitude of things?

Is it that knowledge that is uncovered or created by a new process or understanding will probably be covered back over or be forgotten at some time in the future? Is this a reason for celebration?

Is it easy or natural for one to be excited about being in the scientific world of not knowing for sure? Is this the only way a scientist can work? Is not being able to know for sure an interesting place to be, where there’s a great number of things to explore that are not resolved and many more that probably will never be? Are new and important things to explore being noticed and noted all the time?

Can one get accustomed to doubt? Can one look forward to it? Is it that being on the unsharpened edge of things an exciting and complicated place to be? Is almost everything up for grabs?

Once a person is living with and using doubt and the knowledge that many current beliefs will be overwritten by different beliefs in the future, can he or she leave this way of living and thinking alone?

What is the future of the brick-like state of sureness found in political and religious thinking? How will those two stand up against the erratic but flowing states of science, art, literature, history, and philosophy?