Yesterday I came across a reference to Miss Manners Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior. I was intrigued – what is excruciatingly correct behavior like? Is it really so excruciating?

I was intrigued, but also expecting to be provoked, as I googled my way to some more examples of Miss Manners’ advise on etiquette and good manners. I expected to be provoked, because I firmly believe that the correct way in which to eat asparagus is of negligible importance in the grand scheme of things. Our morals, truthfulness, courage, and so on, can in no wise be compared to our ability to distinguish one fork from another.

However, I was very pleasantly surprised by Miss Manners, and I have learned to appreciate why manners are important, even beyond smoothing out the occasional awkwardness of social situations.

Comparing the relative virtue of morals and manners, as I have done, misses the fact that manners are not there to replace morals, they are there to make the most of them. Moral values, such as courage and honesty are universal – everyone may not have them in equal amounts, but everyone can appreciate them. Manners, on the other hand, pertain more to how we behave in a specific situation - do we hold open the door, or not - and rely on a shared understanding of what holding the door open actually means.*

(*To some, this means “you must have weak arms and be generally incapable of opening doors,” and to others, “I open the door for you because my own efforts are of little consequence compared to your comfort.”)

Manners make the most of our morals because they often provide the means through which we express them. If I were truly grateful for a gift from a friend, would it not be natural to write her a card to say how grateful I am? The generosity and deep appreciation of my own heart should dictate that I seek to share these emotions with her in a way she will understand. It is not about reciprocating tit for tat (which would require me to do something comparable for her), or upholding an empty social ritual, but about communicating my gratitude.

If I greatly respect someone, I may express this by giving them a seat at the head of the table, be quiet while they speak, and/or whichever small tokens she would understand. This is not about being stiff or sucking up, but rather to reinforce (or sometimes even replace) spoken language (“I respect you”) with another kind of language: actions. And what are manners but very small acts, acts that nevertheless speak loudly?

A second, equally crucial, but perhaps less obvious value of manners is that they may prevent us from inflicting our own shortcomings on others. It seems Miss Manners is forever asked questions of this sort, “What is the polite way to tell the guests that really all we want for our wedding is a lot of cash?” Her answer is, of course, that there is none. It is poor manners to expect gifts in the first place, and equally poor manners to tell people what to get you. Refraining from putting “Give us money, please” on your wedding invitation, because you don’t want people to think you’re rude, doesn’t mean you’re not greedy. But it does prevent you from inflicting it on your poor wedding guests.

Over the past few months, there has been an increasingly insistent voice in the back of my mind, asking me to blog, blog, blog! This voice has been echoed by some of my friends, in very kind and encouraging ways.

I have therefore resolved that it is about time I get back to some serious Tinkering! Not too serious, I hope, but at least regular and enthusiastic tinkering. There are still a few technical quirks I need to sort out, so I ask your patience while I get all the links and menus working right.

Having taken a rather extended break from excessive tinkering, (and from thinking in general) has been very refreshing. However, the reason for taking a break is, in the end, to resume with new vigour and inspiration. I hope this will be the case.

Hopefully I will also find the time to share a few of my non-computer tinker-projects from the past year.

This blog has not been updated for a while, and it wont be updated for another while yet. I have some thoughts and plans for the revival of Therese Tinkering, but in the meantime, please be patient and do not take anything I say here too seriously :)

I will make sure to make it known when I really get going again with this blog.

I'm not a particularly good blogger, it turns out, having failed miserably to regularly update my blog. But having been forced to take a break in my schedule by some at first delicious, and then quite pernicious, fish soup, I might as well do something moderately useful with my time.

I was just reading an article entitled The Day the Music Died by Prof. Michael Geist, about a 100% legal wiki-based collection of music scores, the International Music Score Library Project (IMSLP). The site was based in Canada, and all the music was in the public domain in Canada. However, it went offline after Universal Edition, an Austrian firm demanded it remove certain works from being accessed from Europe, whereworks take longer to enter the public domain.

The legal grounds of Universal Edition are not strong, as a Canadian court would find the site to be in full compliance with Canadian law, and an Austrian court does not have jurisdiction in Canada. Despite the site being in total compliance with domestic law and the questionable jurisdiction of any Austrian claims, however, the site complied with the firm's demands, and disappeared entirely.

I think it is fair to say that while the internet may not be a clearly defined legal space, it is far from a legal vacuum, and the vagueness that comes from operating in a mishmash of domestic laws seldom ends up benefiting law-abiding internet users like myself (or any other hypothetical readers of this blog).

I'm not a fan of copyright or unrestrained big business. At the same time, I believe in being obedient to the law even if it is inconvenient and silly (some copyright law falls into this category in my opinion). But what about that huge gray expanse between the laws of one country and those of another? Between the assertions of the self-proclaimed owners, and the assertions of those who claim the right to use the materials?

Well, despite companies like Universal Edition getting their way more often than not (the ongoing case of Allofmp3.com is an interesting one to watch), it is important to remember that international copyright law, like other international law, is not as straight-forward as domestic law. The fact remains that international law takes states as its subjects. Thus, despite the hegemony of certain countries (e.g. the US) and their companies, their assertions and copyright warnings amount to nothing unless they are also endorsed by the law of the country in which I am at the time, and the host country of the online services I'm using.

Having spent a very interesting summer in East Timor, I discovered that among the whole sets of laws yet to be passed in this young democracy are property laws. It would therefore be entirely legal to purchase copied DVDs (which there were a lot of).

However convenient this can be for those who frequent such places, I believe that a reasonable and much more representative international legal code for the internet and information ownership is long overdue, going well beyond the issue of file-sharing. Trade and information on the internet cannot conform to all the worlds domestic laws, as Geist pointed out. Freedom of speech needs both to be protected and exercised responsibly online as in the non-digital world. Who has the right to see whose e-mails in the name of counter-terrorism?

The issue that arises is one of accountability: If the laws of another country regarding my (a) financial transactions, (b) freedom of speech, (c) privacy, or (d) access to information in the public domain, are applied to me, isn't that indicative of a failing in democracy? If taxation without representation is hard to swallow, shouldn't legislation without representation be equally so? There are two ways about the issue: Logging off, or creating an international democratic framework for clarifying and upholding information, speech, and privacy rights (of both ownership and access).

I ended my last post with a question about whether material development (industrialization etc.) must necessarily bring with it a way of life that emphasizes speed and consumption. As I was falling asleep last night, there rang a bell far back in the logs my head seems to keep (much to my own surprise) of things I read. Today I found the reference. It is a quote by Abdu'l-Baha, the son of Baha'u'llah (the founder of the Baha'i Faith) and head of the Faith after his Father's passing. Abdu'l-Baha traveled quite a bit to the West, and this particular piece is from a speech given 14th of April 1912 in New York City.

“Since my arrival in this country I find that material civilization has progressed greatly, that commerce has attained the utmost degree of expansion; arts, agriculture and all details of material civilization have reached the highest stage of perfection, but spiritual civilization has been left behind. Material civilization is like unto the lamp, while spiritual civilization is the light in that lamp. If the material and spiritual civilization become united, then we will have the light and the lamp together, and the outcome will be perfect.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Promulgation of Universal Peace, pg 11)

I think the metaphor of lamp and light is very beautiful, and it also conveys a nuanced relationship between material and spiritual civilization. Exactly how to define the two, I'm not sure, but I imagine material civilization to pertain to worldly achievements such as economic prosperity, increased scientific knowledge, health, literacy and arts, and so forth. Spiritual civilization I imagine to pertain to things that give our lives meaning, such as faith, service, love and justice in our interactions with others. Material civilization may protect and strengthen spiritual progress, but it's important to remember that the purpose of material civilization is to spread the light of spirituality, to create meaningful human lives.

This is, at least, how I understand it. And it explains why the capability approach advocated by Sen in the field of development makes so much sense, precisely because it focuses on those (material) capabilities that enable individuals to pursue the lives they have reason to value.

But how exactly do we find meaning, or value, in our lives? Through what kind of reasoning? Is what we choose to value necessarily the same as a deeper meaning in (or of) life?

Evidence (war being exhibit number one) seems to suggest that it is not; we often choose to pursue the wrong kind of value. That, in turn, explains why Abdu'l-Baha noted that spiritual civilization had not progressed in pace with material civilization. Globally, this means that our material capacity for waging war has by far outstripped the spiritual capacity for making peace.

Personally, it means that my material capacity to spend all night on facebook (or blogging for that matter) far outstrips my spiritual capacity to use it for meaningful purposes, or better yet, turn off the computer, say my prayers, and go to sleep.