>My thoughts on these matters have evolved substantially since then. Mainly, I no longer have any faith in such an architecture transforming the hairy biped to an upright being, which is the (pure) idea behind Masonic thought.

My feeling is that the best, most stable, architecture is emergent. There is some of this there, it seems. But, I think that the best system might necessarily surprise everyone.

In my day job, I'm always reading: X gene does Y function. :/ -I'm afraid that isolating key components leads to artificial effects that in part reflect the reasons why those components were isolated. It's my guess we agree on this. At the same time, we have people that speak of free markets, defending something that isn't a free market in any sense but the sense that they call it that. When we enact, what are we enacting?

I think for these reasons, I find the introduction to CHOICES to be the most compelling part. It enlightens, which is perhaps the most realizable consequence of any thing. Originality is an initial condition of a new development. I gained new perspective from it, and new ways to speak of some things.

I'm not sure what I am saying exactly, :) but maybe it's something like: Maybe the most important thing the Masons have done is to be Masons, -and they might not approve of the result if they were honest with themselves.

At any rate, I am going to read this again. :)