What a difference to investigate the universe out there by direct observation - as astrophysicists do - than to try to figure out how it is by logical speculation! One is reminded of Galileo inviting the medieval thinkers of his time to look at Jupiter satellites through the telescope, an experience that would shatter their now obsolete aristotelian cosmos.
This book by a brilliant psychologist is apt for the question: how much can you prove about the mind without looking through the "brain-telescope" of neuroscience. Well, interesting as it may be it will painfully remain an ungrounded speculation.
Maybe this is why the starting point of the book is the mind-body problem; that is, the dualistic approach that's been burdening us,Westerners, for more than two thousand years. For more than half the book Humphrey struggles pathetically - logically - to prove that sensation (emotions, body)and perceptions (mind) are parallel or exclusive processes in the brain. But why it is so we never learn it in the book. Dualism is therefore inevitably reinstated, but now by becoming physically inscribed in the brain.
Read instead neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás' I OF THE VORTEX and you'll see what I mean: not only perceptions, but conciosusness in general, are the evolutionary solution to the complex behavior of independently moving animals, which require a strategic look-ahead function to survive. Emotions are the starting and climatic moments that enclose the motor activity for such living beings. In this way, duality is finally and naturally expelled because emotions and perceptions - and conciousness - become a unified whole, a natural phenomenon that can be fully observed and understood only if you look directly through the "brain-telescope".
For as Llinás points it out in the introduction to his magnificent book: "Just as Western Society, steeped in dualistic thinking, must re-orient in order to grasp the elemental tenets of nondualistic philosophy, so there must be a fundamental reorientation perspective in order to approach the neurobiological nature of the mind."
Humphrey's approach is to me, interesting as it may be, "scholastic speculation". For we have now a "brain-telescope" (neuroscience) to look through and behold the heavens of our mind.

I liked the evolutionary focus, especially the proposed theory on how perception/sensation diferentiations evolved. But it is implicitly assumed that consciousness=sensation, and I doubt this is the case. Also, considering the purposes of the book, there is not much neurology. It would be nice if the author could go all the way and propose clearer neurological correlates for sensation, in hte sense described in the book. However, seen in present consciousness studies context, this is a highly valuable volume, that certianly could become a classic. Great prose.
There is a reviewer who mentions Dennett, and I would like to say something in Humphrey's behalf. First, it is not evident that Dennett has it right (see Crick and Kotch's paper 'the unconscious homonucolus" for a possibility). Second, I do not see what reading of Humphrey's would show a cartesian theather fallacy in his model.(Humphrey is close, and has collaborated with, Dennett. I would think he is aware of his work). Whithout spoiling it, consciousness for Humphrey (or qualia) are "as-if" bodily activity loops in the brain. There is no place where it all "comes together", and the activity is refered back to itself, so does not need to be read out by a homonuculus. Humphrey's free from the cartesian theather.

Surely the phenomena of consciousness is one of the most intractable problems in the universe. Legions of very bright people have taken a stab at the problem, to little or no avail. Sadly, I am unable to resist the temptation to read yet another discussion on the subject, even though I know I will come away frustrated.

My reservations notwithstanding, this book turned out to contain some genuinely interesting, as well as sensible, thinking on the operation of the human brain. His theory is well grounded in common sense, and is developed carefully. Humphrey's approach is a good one: How might the human brain have evolved to create consciousness from primitive antecedents?

Central to Hamphrey's theory is the distinction between sensation and perception, that is to say the difference between the subjective sensations that we experience versus the awareness of some external object. This argument takes a considerable length of time for Humphrey to unpack, and there were moments where I doubted that the distinction was worth the care that Humphrey lavished upon it. However, at the end of the day, it is worth wading through this discussion in order to fully understand this key element of Humphrey's idea.

The critical leap occurs when Humphrey postulate the existence of "reverbatory feedback loops." Under this theory, consciousness arises when sensory information is shuttled between the nervous system and the brain repeatedly. This mechanism would give temporal continuity to sensation and might well be the foundation for consciousness.

Whether or not you buy this theory, you will be interested to follow Humphrey through the steps that allow him to get to the conclusion. There are numerous simple examples drawn from a broad range of disciplines, that will give you insight into the human brain, even if you resist the final conclusion. However, once you see the theory in its final form, it is pretty beguiling. In fact, Humphrey actually concludes with a discussion of whether the theory is "too simple."

If this is an area that appeals to you at all, this is a book worth reading!

The Occult Roots of Nazism by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke is a very well written study of the massive influence Aryan occultism and esoteric societies had upon Hitler and the theoriticians of the NSDAP. He is quite comprehensive in his coverage of Ariosophist philosophers and enigmatic volkish groups which blossomed in late ninteenth-early twentieth century middle Europe.

What makes this book worth reading to the student of Modern European History, is not only Goodrick-Clarke's ability to link these movements to Nazi philosophy, but his attention to detail. Further, he carefully explains the historical surroundings and mystical, sometimes ludicrous, beliefs held by members of the various Ariosophical societies.These explanations, coupled with what must have been very tedious research, enlighten these somewhat obscure and often forgotten influences on the NSDAP.

This book is well worth a read. However, its appeal is somewhat limited to those with particular interest in the occult

philosophy sub-genre of Nazi Studies. By no means is it a typical Shirer inspired playscript of the Reich.

TAB

this was a well written book, if you have an interest in the history of nazi europe this is a must read!

This is a great book on the history of the movement. A lot of good info about Aryan Paganism in Germany at the start of the 1900s. I've known people who were involved with German Wotanism between the 1920s to 1945 and have books of and about that time period, but Mr. Goodricke-Clarke talks about alot of people I've never heard of before, and he gives new details about people I've read a great deal about. This book is the only source for a lot of this info.
His new book Black Sun is like part II of The Occult Roots of Nazism. He talks about the Pagan Revival after WWII and all the new ideas and people in the movement. These two books should be read together.

Do not expect gripping dramatic prose from this detailed history. This is an adequate text and reference but not likely suited for the information-seeking, recreational reader. Despite studying international relations for several years, my knowledge of Russian history exhibited glaring weaknesses. Riasanovsky's work continued to appear as I researched texts with which to fortify my deficiencies. All indications show it to be a classic work of Russian history, used in university courses for decades, and perhaps the most detailed one-volume work suited for a general audience. I found "A History of Russia" (Sixth Edition) to be informative, detailed, and faithfully updated (now encapsulating the fall of the Soviet Union and Russia under Yeltsin). Although a solid text, it is a difficult tome to conquer cover-to-cover as it fails to capture the literary senses of the reader.

Riasanovsky takes the reader mechanically through the development of the Russian state. He begins with the geopolitical landscape as it existed prior to the Russians then examines in detail the flowering of Kiev, the appanage system, and the Muscovite, imperialist, revolutionary, and Soviet eras. Riasanovsky's painstaking attention to detail and thorough familiarity with other historiographies provide the reader with a comprehensive evolutionary picture. For example, his illustration of the early appanage system and the continuation of class disparities well into the 20th century shed ample light on the fertile ground into which Vladimir Lenin was able to sow the communist theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. His verbal portraits of leaders such as Ivan the Terrible and Catherine the Great give meaningful context to the power struggles and political imbroglios which characterized specific reigns. The addenda which have accompanied each new edition are less detailed and necessarily superficial. They provide sufficient material to update the reader on Russia's current state of affairs but beg for additional research by the more serious student.

I just read a "one star review" of this book, and it galled me. So I write this.
This book is a STANDARD history of Russia, used by many, including my, college courses on the subject. It is generally considered a classic.
If you want, or profess, to understand Russian history, this book is a must. Absolutely. First rate. NO, not without the author's personal imput.
But what book is without that imput? NONE.
Buy it, read it, and try to understand. Yes, read others, but read this first.
THIS IS THE STANDARD TEXT.
Take care and God bless your endeavors.

For those interested in Russia and its past, this is not a bad place to start. It is as comprehensive as a 600 page volume can be. I read the Fourth Edition, so am glad to hear that it has been updated at least to the Gorbochov era. Riasanovsky is particularly adroit at representing early Russian history, with vivid accounts of the numerous invasions (Mongols, Vikings, Tatars, Teutons, etc.). After reading this book, one cannot help but understand the national paranoia and xenophobia that has been so much a part of Russian policy and posture throughout so much of its history. It also becomes clearer why Russia has historically needed a central "father" or "mother" figure to guide it through its tumultuous periods.

As to a reader's criticism, Riasanovsky is indeed somewhat biased, but certainly no more than the typical American historian writing about US History. He gives more than equal blame, for instance, to Nicholas II for getting his country involved in the Crimean War. He certainly never acts as an apologist for any of the Russian rulers at any stage, though his admiration for Peter the Great and Catherine can't be denied.

Poles, Ukranians, Lithuanians, etc. are not going to be won over by this book, but it is to the author's credit that the reader understands why they wont be. But winning anyone's approval is hardly Riasnovsky's object. He's primarily trying to tell the story of a people, and he succeeds on that level, quite brilliantly. The story he tells is complex and fascinating, to say the least. So many colorful and unforgettable characters advanced across Russia's historical stage, that any other country would be hard put to come up with such a cast or a saga.

While this book is meant to serve as an introduction to the complex world of hedge funds, hedge fund managers and hedge fund investors (in short, the hedge fund dynamic), it is decidedly not of the For Dummies family that currently dominates the do-it-yourself investment section of the book store. This is a highly sophisticated look at what has become one of the most exciting sectors of the investment world. If you have some knowledge of finance and its terminology, and you want to know what a hedge fund is, what kinds of strategies most hedge fund managers use and whether or not you'd want to or be able to invest in hedge funds, we ... recommend this highly specific book to you. On the other hand, if you just want to gain some insights into the investment world, you'd be better off picking up the financial section of the newspaper. Hedge funds are serious and so is Joseph G. Nicholas' book. (... note: Despite the 1999 copyright date, the book makes no reference to Long-Term Capital Management, the hedge fund that collapsed in 1998, nearly bringing about a global financial crisis.)

In the recent flood of often useless books aimed at investors this book stands out as a little gift. It provides a clear and detailed introduction to hedge funds useful to investors and to anybody with an interest in understanding how hedge funds work. The book is math-free, but thinking is not optional. I like the summary of hedge fund strategies and the description of their returns and weights in the universe of hedge funds. Unfortunately, one has to hope that the chapter and the charts will be updated frequently for they will be soon obsolete. As this book definitely deserves to see more editions, I hope that the author will go through the trouble to include both more examples and more details for each of the eleven strategies. That would definitely make the book more appealing to those readers with sophisticated backgrounds and useful to be used in classrooms as well.

Nicholas examines all the hedge fund strategies in detail and provides the investor with examples of all the strategies used by managers. Excellent for understanding the mechanics of each strategy. As a doctoral student in business administration doing a thesis on hedge funds, I highly recommend this book for all investors

Quite frankly, I wish I hadn't bothered to buy and read this book. I read dozens of travel books each year and this so far is this year's least satisfying. The main story line is an account of four or five extremely boring days the author spent in Normandy trying to decided whether or not to keep a beloved family house. As far as I could tell (though by the end I admit I was skimming the book, desperate to rid myself of it), he and his wife never did come to a decision.

The best part of the book were the family photographs and stories. The author's grandfather seems to have been an Impressionist painter of some note and Kilmer's mother spent her childhood in the house in the 1920s. Aside from this period flavor, though, the book didn't seem to do anything well. There were long rambling descriptions of laundry problems. There was an unconvincing cast of characters, none of whom seemed to have a personality (other than appearing to be generally weird.) The author seemed to have little understand or appreciation for French culture or food. In the end, I had no idea who the author really was, why he was telling the story, or what I was supposed to take from it. I really hate being this critical of a writer's honest effort, but on the other hand, I want to spare others the boredom I just endured. Buy MFK Fisher, Ruth Reichl, Susan Herman-Loomis, Peter Mayle, AJ Liebling, even a Sebastian Faulks novel if you want to read something interesting about France--but don't buy this.

After rebuilding ancient houses with Mayle in Provence and Mayes and Mate' in Tuscany I was rather disappointed in a repetitious recital of the problems with the floor, the rain, the plumbing, and the flotsum and jetsam lying around the farm waiting to be decomposed or resurrected as some antique. I kept wanting them to get on with the building/restoration and the unique characters the Killmer's would have to deal with to restore the home.

I found this book delightful, and so have passed it on to several people, all of whom think it is a great read.

Before 9/11/2001, there was a national media feeding frenzy on these folks, and then, like Chandra herself, it vanished. Through it all, the folks at the National Enquirer were on the case. (Ok, I admit it: I cheat my diet with a Krispy Kreme donut now and then, & sometimes I read the ever erudite Enquirer - what else to do when stranded in the slow-moving check-out line?)

This book was written by Enquirer staffers and poorly published by affiliate American Media, Inc. The copy I got has the print hugging the outside margin of the page, often losing the battle and falling off the literary tightrope. The amalgamated articles are awash in celebrity shrink speculation, which may end up being similar to the now egg-on-faced "profilers" who were all over the media speculating about the pre-arrest D.C. snipers.

Think of this book as "junk food for the mind:" a guilty pleasure and possibly equally nutritious. What *did* Preacher's Kid Gary Condit, Southern Oklahoma Babtist, Evil Eddie Haskell/ Mr. Hyde, whom the voters of his California US House District had the latter-day good sense to turn out in the primary, have to do with Chandra's murder? The speculation here is intriguing: inquiring minds want to know! Reviewed by TundraVision.

This book is based upon the files of the National Enquirer. At the time of the writing, no charges had been filed in the Chandra Levy case and the investigation was ongoing. The book follows the events from the time Levy disappeared, on 1 May 2001, to the weeks following discovery of her body on 22 May 2002.

Levy was an ambitious nonconformist with a fetish for older, married men. She had received several internships before journeying to Washington, D.C. for an internship with the U.S. Bureau of prisons. Within two months she had begun an affair with Congressman Gary Condit. She became obsessed with the man.

Congressman Gary Condit was a man with a hidden nature. On the surface, he appeared to be a gentleman of high moral standing, a devoted husband and father. But beneath, he had a wild side with fetishes for S&M, gay sex, group sex, and experimental adventures with sex toys. He was a man of multiple affairs; cheating on his wife since the day they wed.

When Levy and Condit collided, it was the beginning of the end for both.

I defended Condit so faithfully. When I was living in Modesto, I met him and thought he was a decent, kind man with an open heart for the veterans in his district. He has done so much to help veterans all across America. I still cannot believe he managed to keep his dark side so well hidden! This book blew my mind ... as well as his image!

This was an interesting book. It exposes the dark side of both parties. It tells the story from a neutral point, without attempting to sway the reader to either side. Instead, it throws the dirt out there for everybody to read. If you have any interest in this case, this book is a must read!

If you want new and unusual facts about the Chandra Levy case, be sure to read this book!!! This is a well written page turner sure to satisfy your curiosity.

"Sex, Power and Murder" brings you into the seamy world of Gary Condit and the power and privleges he wrecklessly wielded. The naive mindset of Chandra Levy is also skillfully observed with attention to the whole "Congressional Intern as Prey" scene in Washington.

The Unknown life of Jesus Christ is a surprise and a shock only to those who are still under the influence of their cultural programming. And the assumtion that there is only one path to God.

This work is just the beginning of more records from India that will help verify why the New testament concepts are the same as those of the Sanatana Dharma (or "Hinduism" to the uneducated).

These unifying spiritual principles were brought out very cleraly in both the "Autobiography of a Yogi" & God Talks With Arjuna" by Paramahansa Yogananda. Who by the way, also attests that Jesus was in India. The difference here of course is that Yogananda did not have to rely on Other spirits to tell Him so, He did not dabble in those methods.

Some writers claim that eastern sages try to make Jesus words fit into their own molds. This is not in the least way true or necessary. they are the same! When I was a youth and studying the New Testament for the first time, the later the Bhagavad Gita, it was clear to me then (without any other influence)that it was the same teaching in both sacred books.

Since there presently are no records that contradict the records in India re Jesus visited there for many years, and since persons in that part of the world do not have the goal of world domination (exclusivism). I accept the findings of Notavich and those great ones who state that Jesus was in India.

First, let's get one thing out of the way: It has now been *proven* that Nicolas Notovitch, *did* visit the Hemis lamasery (see page 132-135 of the recently released book, Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion?).

Dr. Fida Hassnain, a living scholar who currently resides in Srinagar, Kashmir (the city that houses the Roza Bal--the mausoleum that houses the physical remains of Jesus Christ), visited the Hemis monastery in recent times, and he stated the following: "...the other Lamas who also were present belonging to the monastery immediately said that their older monks *did remember* an Englishman being injured and brought to their monastery and that some MSS (manuscripts) were shown to him." In those times, any European was referred to as an "Englishman" by the inhabitants of Tibet.

One wonders *why* we should believe the claims of Dr. Archibald Douglas *over* the claims of an Asian scholar, Dr. Hassnain, who knows the languages of the area, and the culture of the people. Why? Because Dr. Douglas was a European, hum? Why should he be believed? Just because he made a statement?

Anyway, this is a fascinating book that will hold your attention from beginning to end. The style of the teachings of Jesus that Notovitch reveals, as contained in the manuscripts he saw, are strikingly similar to Gnostic, Afghani, Persian, Hindu, Kashmiri and Nazarene traditions (See Saving the Savior) that record the teachings of Jesus Christ. I doubt that Notovitch even knew of these other traditions, which gives more weight to his account.

The *real* reason that Douglas and others *fabricated* their claims that Notovitch did not visit Hemis (now disproven by Hassnain) is that the teachings of Jesus revealed in the Buddhist documents at Hemis *match* the teachings revealed in Gnostic, Afghani, Persian, Hindu, Kashmiri and Nazarene accounts.

And those teachings *do not* speak of death, "resurrection" and ascension. They speak about finding God *within.* They repeat the idea of Gnosis [recall how the Paulene Christians eventually, and violently, destroyed the Gnostic and other *original* Christian movements that *did not* believe the Paulene death and resurrection myth.]

So let's do the arithmatic: We have 7 traditions (Buddhist, Gnostic, Afghani, Persian, Hindu, Kashmiri and Nazarene) that reveal a very *human* Jesus who spoke of Gnosis and God within, and ONE tradition that claims he is the literal "Son of God." Seven against one. *That's* why they fear and hate Notovitch--he confirmed what *already* existed about Jesus in 6 other traditions, and that confirmation went AGAINST Paulene Christianity.

Notovitch remains a BIG thorn in the side of Church Christianity, and THAT is why the lie was fabricated that Notovitch never visited Hemis. This lie was further disproved by the great Swami Abhedananda, who went to Hemis and *saw* the documents. Abhedananda, again, was an *Asian.*

So we have the word of two Asians against the word of two Europeans. And NATURALLY, the word of the Europeans must CERTAINLY be correct...right!? NOT!

Read Notovitch's book. And then read Jesus Lived in India (Kersten); Jesus Died in Kashmir (Kaiser); Jesus in Heaven on Earth (Nazir Ahmad), etc. If you can't find those, then read Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion? (2001), the latest and most complete book on the subject.

I personnally believe that the content of Notovitch's book dealing with the probable stay of Christ in India is very convincing. What is most interesting is that different versions of the story of the life of Jesus made by different sages of India converge with the one which Notovitch read in the manuscripts of Himis. Very accurate details of Isa's life are given by Yogananda Paramahansa, by Sathya Sai Baba.... These two saints of India never met, but their stories of the life of Jesus outside India do not contradict at all with the one brought forward by Notovitch. For both of these sages, Christ mission was to create a bridge between the east and the west to allow spirituality and materialism to work hand in hand. For both of them, it seems that the message of Christ has not yet been fully understood by humanity. Christ is supposed to be a universal master.

I chose this book to read and analyse a couple of years ago. It seemed to have simple meaning, but the more I tried to analyse, the more outstanding I found the book, and far from simple.
Helen Alving is a widow and is keeping a secret. One day she tells her friend Manders and he's quite shocked. It all has to do with some money from her dead husband that she doesn't want her son to have. Oswald, her son, comes home from abroad with very sad news. He is ill, and there isn't a cure for him. When Mrs. Alving is told that it was most likely inherited, she tells her son the secret too, and that changes his view on his father. As the book goes on, the intriques grow bigger...
Ibsen is probably more known for his play "A Doll House", but this one is just as great. He was very critical of the society and most, if not all, of his books often has a somewhat hidden story where he debates social matters and also morals. He use symbols and mostly contrasts to give the play a certain atmosphare and meaning. I believe this is one of Ibsen's greatest plays and strongly recommend it to anyone.

Although Henrik Ibsen is the first great modern dramatist, his play "Ghosts" ("Gengangere") bears a strong similarity to ancient Greek drama, where the "tragic flaw" of the protagonist lives on in his children. However, in this story the curse on the Alving family has a medical basis. Published in 1881 but not performed until the next year because of its controversial subject matter, "Ghosts" deals with the impact of congenital venereal disease on a family. "Ghosts" strongly reflects Ibsen's desire to attack hypocrisy and conventional morality and caused even more of a furor that his previous drama, "A Doll's House."

Helen Alving is building an orphanage as a memorial to her late husband and the night before the dedication she confesses to her old friend Parson Manders that her husband had been a "degenerate," and she is building the orphanage using her husband's "dirty" money so only her own money will pass on to her son, Oswald, who has just returned from living abroad. But then Oswald confesses he has a debilitating, incurable disease that the doctors believe was inherited. Even from beyond the grave, the "ghost" of Captain Alving ruins the life of his family. Mrs. Alving has to confess her husband's past to their son, destroying the young man's idealized view of his father. Knowing he is dying, Oswald wants to seduce the maid, Regina, so that when he enters the next stage of the disease she will give him poison. Oswald does not care that Regina is really his half-sister, and in the end it will be his mother's decision whether or not to give her son the poison when Oswald begins to have his attack.

The ending of the play constitutes a Rorschach test for the audience, with Ibsen refusing to let them off the hook. "Ghosts" is probably the Ibsen drama that relies most on symbolism, from the heavy use of light/dark imagery to the purifying aspects of fire, to the obvious symbolism of ghosts. Consequently, I think this makes "Ghosts" one of the easier plays by Ibsen for students to analyze. Final Argument: Reading Ibsen's plays in order has greater benefit than usual. If you read "A Doll's House," "Ghosts," "An Enemy of the People," and "The Wild Duck," then you will see the playwright struggling to find a play that will reflect his deeply held beliefs and also find widespread critical and public acceptance. The relationship between each set of plays in the progression becomes insightful, as Ibsen either extends or reverses elements of the previous drama. For teachers of drama there might not be a better quartet of plays to study to show the growth of a major dramatist.

If a great dramatist did not challenge the binding social restrictions back in late 19th century, it would probably have taken longer for us to break the chains of convention. Ibsen contributed to the liberation of society and its rules using dramatic pieces like Ghosts. I don't want to give out the plot, but basically it's about a catastrophe created when the characters adhered to outdated social norms instead of following their hearts. The play is written after the classical Greek style of tragedy, so there's a strong taste of Sophecles in Ghosts. The play begins less than 24 hours before its end, and Ibsen's greatness is clearly shown by his ability to pack so much plot and message in so few words. When read today, the figures in Ghosts may seem ridiculous, for they strictly follow outdated rules that we all belittle today. But had not Ibsen had the courage to attack them, we might still be living under those rules now. Definitely a great piece.

John maeda is not a designer. He wishes he was, and he makes every effort and spares nothing to achieve the recognition that he is more than just a mere computer technitian having a craze for graphic play.
But it is apparent from this oversized and bloated book that his real talent lies in programming, and the vast majority of the works desplayed (hundreds and hundreds of them, most of them repetative versions of several original ideas)are computer genertaed graphics with (mostly) no regard for composition , and lacking the most basic elements that any serious graphic designer pays attention to. Most of what we see are endless ,intricate textures produced by the click of a button. Where is the designer in this process? The potential of this kind of intricate imagery is clear, and there is no doubt that if Maeda would collaborate with a true designer, the results will be stunning. But they are not. seen one - seen them all.

I hate to be the one to go against the other reviews, but I had to with this one. I just didnt see why people liked the book. I found the designs to be very techy and old school...mostly examples of what computer design used to encompass. I wasnt inspired by any of the work in the this HUGE book. If you want cutting edge inspiration, look elsewhere.

Easily my favorite book I've read this year, Maeda @ Media is a sumptuously-produced chronicle of Maeda's work, printed on three kinds of stock and using a metallic ink in addition to CMYK. Believe it or not, Maeda even designed the software used to publish his book! A real, DIY kind of guy.

My favorite section so far is his pictorial documentation of the tofu-making process from his childhood--I found it to be a very telling and poignant introduction to his work.

I also love the care and thought he put into designing the edges of the pages in the final brown paper section. It was more than just a visual essay on squares, as each page helped to spell out the words along the cut edges of the paper. It made me appreciate the composition of the individual pages even more because their existence as a design had been assigned a purpose and meaning. No longer were they just images, but they were part of a greater visual system. Logic and beauty coexist harmoniously here. It's wonderfully inspiring: a real treat for both the eyes and the mind.