As I’m currently spending much time talking about the past, the change of lifestyle, society etc, I’m wondering what is important about it.

I suspected initially that there was a judgement here; that the world is not a better place now. But its not bad in every way. My fear is that this is related to my own human incapacity to accept change, in particular, the distant approach of death.

But to answer the question is life better now, produces paradoxical answers; yes and no. No matter how I try, I must face my own incapacity not be able to solve all the world’s problems, and just to highlight some of them.

In particular, society, by which I mean the group, human values, friendship.

Some attribute some of modern individualism to the computer as the root of all evil.

Balance in all things. The computer has good effects; communication, the ability to do things, connexions and yet cutting people off from those around them.

It enables people however to choose, we don’t choose our family, but we do choose our friends and lovers. The escapism possible is a way of finding like-minded folk when not possible in the local community.

So the conclusion is not clear cut; we should not spend all our time inside machines interacting with people elsewhere, to the exlusion of those lovers and friends around us, even if good can come from it. On the other hand, we cannot spend all our time locally, the computer is a tool for stimulation, used in good measure

I have much stronger feelings for Israel since my trip there; the pleasure of seeing people openly able to display their Judaism.

On my return I found myself defending Israeli military action in Syria to stop the transfer of missiles as legitimate self defence and even the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Even before leaving, some had said that they would not consider Israel a holiday destination, because of the perceived danger; some also expressed their aversion to the politics there.

Israel is getting stick abroad because of the Palestinian situation and the politics of settlements.

However, we came to understand, despite the unescapable symbolism of division in the parallel with Berlin, that since the construction of the wall, there are no more bombs in Tel Aviv.

May the peace be long-lasting; mazel tov.

I was looking back over my cv career and found that in each case I could say that there were areas in each job that were not a success for me and thus my career is rather built on mediocrity.

I could also make excuses or be easier on myself, lower self expectations but I hear Clayton Christensen talking about excellence, high flyers, brilliance and find myself aspiring to brilliance without ever the feeling of achieving it.

Can I repair this now by finding purpose and moving further towards work that I enjoy and do well?

I recently travelled to Israel, to Tel Aviv, where I had my bar mitzvah in the square having laid Tefillin and thus was effectively renamed. And I got a blessing: the guy said this was a great day for me and wished big things to happen. Which did, starting with losing my iPhone later that night. While it seemed a big thing at the time, the real process came later.

Because I lost my phone, I concentrated on my Kindle and bought the book How Will You Measure Your Life by Clayton Christensen. I was quickly captivated by the fact that a man of his caliber could discuss the same issues that I have been struggling with for years, in such a clear and understandable way. The issue of Purpose. But now I am confronted with the greatest question of my life: what is my purpose?

I said prior to my trip that I did not believe in God and yet recently I went to my local church  to light a candle. Do I now believe in God because a man in Tel Aviv talked of God’s commandments, or because I saw the fervent kissing Jesus’s tombstone? Like Clayton, I should perhaps ask God what my purpose is. God, what is my purpose?

Clayton defines purpose as being composed of three elements; Likeness, Commitment and a Metric. Who do I want to become or what do I want my business to look like, what will drive me every day to strive to become what I want or what I want my business to become and a metric to measure whether I am moving towards or away from my projected likeness.

But just now I do not know what I want to become. I followed the advice of Steve Pavlina and started writing what my purpose could be. So far nothing has made me cry. Patience is a virtue; I will try again and keep coming back to it until I can articulate it. The importance of words.

Thanks to the Charles Wurth website that I was perusing and found this charming image.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Français.

If land consolidation in the sixties was a consequence of the industrialization of farming and its effect on the countryside, both may have resulted in the individualization of land and the depopulation of the countryside.

But did people leave the country because of land consolidation, because of the arrival of electricity and water networks and a general movement to the towns, or was it something else? Was there a general movement out of the countryside, which was inevitable?

How can anyone criticize or resent the changes to society that have occurred over the last two generations? It’s a difficult subject. The basis for criticism is the change in values that has accompanied the change in society. The question is not black and white, it is not sufficient to say that Internet is bad, that modern society is evil, that people are egotistical, individualistic, selfish and self-seeking.

It is not possible to say that in the past either during or before the war that people were altruistic, generous and self-effacing for there will always be people of all persuasions.

However, from a general point of view, were people in general more likely and disposed to help one another and are they today more likely to be self-centred?

People in the past indeed seem to have helped one another in the face of poverty and yet life seems to have been so much harder, somehow there was an acceptance that people might die from poverty. But we would no longer leave people to die of poverty. We invented Social Security.

Is Social Security a manifestation of a fundamental change in people’s attitudes, a modern manifestation, in a democratic society, of people’s willingness to support others, or is it simply a discharge of their responsibilities to others through taxes and money such that they no longer need to care for people around them? Not easy to accept perhaps the burden of looking after an elderly person in the family.

What do we know of property nowadays? Poverty is not what it used to be. In the past poverty could kill, whereas today in Europe at least, it is generally discomfort, insufficiency and inability to provide new clothes for our children. There are perhaps many more poor people than before, since we now speak of a generation of ‘poor workers’, people who work and yet do not have quite enough money to survive in today’s expensive society.

But what is the objective, what is the goal of life? Is it to possess, to own, only to die and pay for a retirement by selling our homes to pay for a retirement home? In many ways we have swallowed the marketing hype. We must have the new, we must throw away the old, repairing is no longer possible, old is bad, new is good.

But replacement comes at the cost of falling into the marketing trap, spending and earning, money becoming the objective. But what of quality? What of values, human and social values? Everything is big now, big farms, big towns, big cars. Small is unfashionable.

But there is a danger of hypocrisy for outside observers. Somehow the old life is romanticised as if poverty, hardship, and having nothing is noble. How can we resent those who seek to improve their lives, work hard, earn money, buy better things, improve their health, their situation, their comfort, to care better for their children by giving them everything they need. It is un-disputable, surely, for parents to want the best for their children. But where are the limits? And at what point do children have the right to demand more?

Communism seems to state that going beyond these limits is immoral and regulated as such by the state. Of course no one has implemented true Communism, just Totalitarianism (see Churchill W.). Society cannot truly be a free thing because we have to make compromises. (See A.N. Englishman.)

What about Anti-Capitalism? That seems pretty good, exposing the nonsense of excess. A cynic would say that those who want to take from the rich simply want to give to themselves. Or is it truly that excess in a society where poverty exists is immoral? And what is morality today?

Who is qualified to judge, legislate and dictate to the rich that they should give to the poor? What moral authority do the masses have? What is the weight of democracy? Why does the majority have the moral high ground? What of those people who have the skills, the ability, the resources and even the background to be able to make a fortune? What right do we have to legislate against them? Surely it is just jealousy?

If we do not necessarily want to be like them, surely we would want their riches? Many would deny this, stating that they have enough, but would they refuse winning the lottery? If riches were available to everybody, would they not embrace them and accept them? Surely yes.

But we know that these riches are not available to everyone. We have seen, indeed, that riches are available only to the few and we have the distasteful sentiment that it is not right for the few to have so much, indeed to gain so much by hoodwinking the masses into believing that they must buy the latest gadget, when the latest gadget will not last long, when there are so many scams to produce goods at the highest possible price and the lowest possible quality.

Industrialists may also take the moral high ground too. They would perhaps defend their politics by saying that it is logical to want to make as much money as possible, as much profit as possible, the margin between sales price and cost pays wages and overheads. Indeed, but it’s not just wages and overheads is it?

The remuneration of shareholders is not immoral if in itself. On the contrary, shareholders and financial institutions invest money so that business can set up and therefore create employment. The question is of proportion. What percentage of profit and remuneration goes back to shareholders? What return should they and can they expect? And what should they morally leave for wages and the workforce? This partnership has been maligned; investors provide capital investment, the workforce provides labour.

Today, we say that one cannot survive without the other, but we should bring back the notion of partnership not domination. Profit but fairness, partnership not domination, collaboration not conflict. Normal work conditions, security of employment, understanding what is needed and producing it. Or following the waves of demand and producing that.

Communism turns to Totalitarianism when it imposes what people wants, forces them to produce and uses the profits to repress the population by force (see Stalin.J.) What we need is to change the human psyche to not be greedy and take more than is needed, but who is to judge what is poverty and what is sufficient?

I was reading that democracy is not really present in Egypt despite the revolution. The fears of the population that the transition would be slow and that despite elections, the old regime would still hold power seem to be true at least to some extent.

Is it just the name that has changed or is it the old case of power going to heads? Here’s hoping that forethecoming elections will advance true democracy for Egyptians, real democracy and freedom of expression.

Have you tried moving house in France and keeping your phone number? Did you like me, find yourself saddled with an extra bill from your old telephone operator?

I originally opened a telephone account with Orange and then some time later went ‘degroupé’ which meant to me that I was free of the original operator. Unbeknown to me, the original operator retained ownership of the telephone line.

When I then moved house, I was obliged to get the original operator to move my line, not the current one to whom I paid my bills.

In general customers are within their rights to imagine that when they move their custom in degroupage total that they no longer have a contractual relationship with the old operator, but unbeknown to them, the original owner, France Telecom remains owner of all numbers 01 to 08.

Free can deliver and manage 09 numbers but if the customer wants to keep their 02 number they have to pay France Telecom / Orange to move it.

Portability is the right to keep a number when moving to another operator. It means you just have the right to keep the number, you do not imagine that the old operator can still charge you in relation to that number.

You imagine that you take the number with you and that your sole customer relationship is passed to the new operator.

No-one, including the operators picking up contracts, including Free, is doing anything to make customers think otherwise, no less by saying that fees to move house are free. No mention when signing the original contract with Free that the previous operator remains owner of the line and retains the right to charge services related to moving.