John McQuiston's book, Always We Begin Again, is simple and direct with the heart of St Benedict's message for ALL. It is meant to reach All - maybe especially those who may be uncomfortable with the word "God." But God is there in the pages at every turn. I love the daily meditations. I began at first to read the morning meditation sometime but that increased as I saw the wisdom in the words. It is poetic and humble. The book gives one much to consider in a plain and simple way.

While not a detailed examination of the Rule Of ST. Benedict this remains an inspiring little book. I particularly come back often to the chapter entitled "the twelve steps to humility." I understand that the lack of a direct reference to God may put off some and the desire of the author to use this material in a universalist rather than a purely Christian context strays from the original intent there are nonetheless some thoughtful passages that deserve to be read and re-read.

This little book is, I think, a small miracle. St. Benedict (480 - 543), really the designer of monasticism as it existed in the Western World, wrote his Rule to guide monks through a life of discipline to spiritual realization. There's a great deal of wisdom on that rule, but unfortunately much of it is inaccessable to secular people in the 20th century --- many of us are not strictly Christian these days, most of us not monks or nuns, we live in a much more complex world than existed in the 6th century, etc.

A couple years ago, John McQuiston apparently set out on a search for spiritual principles by which to live in everyday life. He found the Rule of Benedict, and recognizing it's inherent wisdom despite the limitations of its original assumed context. He "translated" the Rule, changing Christian symbols to more universal images, changing allusions to monastic asceticisms to analogous practices possible in the modern secular world. The result is an extremely accessible text that transmits (I think) the core values of St. Benedict's message, values that lead us from a self-centeredness & entrapment in the contingencies of daily life to expansion, clarity, and connection with meaning & Mystery.

The book is small --- each "chapter" really only takes a minute or two to read, so I have been finding it very helpful as a reflection before meditating, before going to bed, etc. I have also been find that these tiny sections reveal more and more upon rereading. I love this book because, on the one hand, it's not "more to read" in the sense of some onerous task, and yet each small investment of time pays richly in inspiring themes on which to reflect for days. It is idea for any busy person in the modern world seeking a life of greater depth and meaning.

What a simple, wonderful and true author. No marketing (low price), no pictures,no turning around the pot...just the truth, take it or leave it! The transition diet is easy to make when we follow the instructions.I felt this man speaks right from his heart, wanting to help people to live a wonderful life. I read many other books, and still come back to this one.

I recommend this book highly to anyone who's looking to find the foundational cause of all disease as well as the one true cure! This is one of the top requests in our Health Niche on our website, and recommended reading for the Vegan Journey Roadmap!

I believe this book is worth gold. The benefits one can achieve are amazing. However, some see the book as outdated because of the new information we may believe "modern science" has, but I think that there are basic truths contained in the book that have nothing to do with modern technology. The idea is that by following the simple advice, much of modern technology in medicine will not be needed as you can do so much for yourself than you once thought possible.

(Because this is not the proper mode of address for certain academic debates on this matter, I am witholding identifying information.)

Spinoza is an amazing philosopher (to my mind, the most dazzling and substantial of them all), but if you can't read Latin, you're pretty much stuck with a handful of bad translations of his works.

Curley's translations are *perhaps* less idiosyncratic than some of the other translations. However, there are some MAJOR defects in Curley's translation. The first involves Curley's scholarship and the fact that he reads Spinoza as a Cartesian (or, at any rate, as a mere footnote to Descartes). This couldn't be further from the truth since Spinoza presents a devastating criticism of the rationalist project at every juncture in his works. Consequently, Curley's translation is based on a distorted picture of the meanings of the terms Spinoza employs. Second, while I can't question Curley's abilities in Latin, I do question many of his translation choices. I'll give one GLARING example of the kinds of choices that distort Spinoza's meaning even insofar as a simple matter of grammar. Curley translates "ideatum" as "object" in many cases. Now, "ideatum" is daitive form of "ideam" [trans. = "idea"]; so how is that supposed to be an "object?" (I.e., Curley's translation implies a subject/object dichotmoy which Spinoza completely rejects in his rejection of the Catesian project.) This is such a misleading way to translate a fundamental term, that I wonder whether it's due simply to Curley's Cartesian blindness or whether it might simply involve a personal animosity towards Spinoza.

Unfortunately, Curley's translation is THE current critical English edition of Spinoza. It will be years before another edition is "warranted." Until then, Curley's will suffice only if supplemented with another translation (Shirley's translations are probably less bad than the others) or, better yet, with the Latin itself. Until Curley's translation of the TTP (and other later works) is released, Shirley's translation of that is the only acceptable alternative to the Latin -- once Curley's translation is released, it will undoubtely become the standard translation for that as well, wehther it is in fact better or worse than Shirley's.

I have read a number of translations of the "Ethics", and this is the best by far. It is lucid, clear, and sensitive to the meaning of its Latin-Dutch terms. Curley is an outstanding Spinoza scholar, and he brings his expertise to the fore, not only in his readable English, but also in the helpful footnotes with which he punctuates Spinoza's text.The price is steep, but well worth it for what is the standard for Spinoza scholarship. The text includes not only the "Ethics," but also his earlier works and letters. If you hesitate at the price, and all you want is the "Ethics," then get the considerably less expensive Curley translation of that work. I wait for the release (will it ever?) of the second volume of Curley's work on Spinoza's texts, especially his translation of and commentary on the Theological-Political Treatise.

This book is the best translation for the research of Spinoza. It provides nearly all what you want. The translation is faithfully based on the Latin version and the terms are delt with very carfully. But the pity is that I have expected the volume II from 1985, but it had not publish untill now. I hope Curley works on his translation, and see the volume II as soon as possible

I knew before reading this book that I liked Spinoza's philosophies on God and life, and I was looking forward to a more in depth study on his thoughts. This book, however, was not what I had in mind. The text was difficult to follow. It could be because it was published originally in 1883 and translated from Latin. For beginners, like myself, I wouldn't recommend it. For me, this book was too mathmatically formulated. Also, there were so many references throughout the book to other paragraphs that it was distracting. All in all, good ideas but not a fun read.

This is a well known and widely read book, ever since its first publication, in latin, in 1677. It is an extraordinary example of multum in parvo - much in little: it has earned for its author a first-class position in the history of philosophy. Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is unquestionably one of the world's greatest philosophers. In the Encyclopaedia Brittanica he is described as "author of one of the greatest metaphysical systems in the history of philosophy". Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy (available through Amazon) calls him "the noblest and most lovable of the great philosophers". Karl Jaspers, in his Introduction to Philosophy (again available through Amazon - Way to Wisdom) mentions that "Spinoza is the metaphysician who with traditional and Cartesian concepts expresses a philosophical faith. He is original in the metaphysical mood which he alone possessed among the philosophers of his time. Of the philosophers of his century he alone has followers today". Spinoza's importance in philosophy derives, I believe, from the following points: (i) Spinoza's metaphysical edifice rests almost entirely on reason. Reason (Spinoza tells us that "clear reason is infallible", The Ethics, Part I, Prop. XV) is, in his system, both the source of all knowledge, and also the means of clarifying and arranging all items of knowledge so obtained. (ii) Spinoza identifies God with Nature. Nature is given an all-encompassing, metaphysical meaning and is also called Substance ("Substantia sive Deus sive Natura", "Substance otherwise God otherwise Nature"). Accordingly, Spinoza belongs to the naturalist school of thought, along with most of the presocratic philosophers (Thales, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Parmenides, Democritus, Leucipus) and the stoic philosophers (Epicurus, Chrysiphus, Seneca, Lucretius). Nature is seen both as an active causal principle (natura naturans) and as the effect of said principle (natura naturata) (The Ethics, Part I, Prop. XXIX). (iii) Spinoza puts forward a logically coherent system of ethics. In fact, he chose so to name his main metaphysical work, and has added the subtitle: demonstrated in a geometrical manner ("Ethica, more geometrico demonstrata"). The Ethics is laid out in the form of definitions, axioms, propositions, demonstrations of said propositions, and scholia. In Spinoza's system ethical values are logically derived from first principles. So much so, that a moral life is identified as "a way of living under the guidance of reason" (The Ethics, Part IV, Prop. XLVI). The moral precepts arrived at, by a process of logical analysis, are as strict as moral precepts based on religious faith. (iv) Spinoza establishes a novel point of view in the age-old question of the existence of good and evil. Spinoza identifies good with knowledge, in particular with knowledge of God, and proceeds to deny the existence of evil. He explicitly states that "God has no knowledge of evil" (The Ethics, Part IV, Preface). Again, "The knowledge of evil is inadequate knowledge" (The Ethics, Part IV, Prop. LXIV). (v) Spinoza transcends logic itself in distinguishing three kinds of knowledge: (a) knowledge from hearsay, (b) knowledge arrived at by logical analysis, and (c) intuitive knowledge. By means of this "third kind of knowledge" we may experience an immediate, intuitive intimation of God ("cognitio Dei intuitiva", The Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXV). Accordingly, Spinoza is both a rationalist and a mystic. (vi) Spinoza's personal character and life was fully in accord with his teaching. He was always honest, truthful, and, in the words of B. Russell, "showed throughout his life a rare indifference to money. The few who knew him loved him, even if they disapproved of his principles". Spinoza's metaphysical system, far from being one-sided and simplistic, has been a constant source of inspiration and reappraisal to many thinkers.

The theory sounds like it would work: take the basics of how a monasatery is run and apply it to raising a family. I don't think the author pulls if off well. I was especially affronted at his ideas about using separation as a means of discipline for children. His use of the concept is not like, the same thing as a time out for a three year old. It's not an awful book or anything, he just didn't convince me that the monastic life is transferrable to a family situation.

What a fresh perspective on family life. Having read a number of books about family life and raising children in a messed up world, this book has given my wife and I a new look at being a family.

Combining the tradition of the Benedictine order and his own experience, David Robinson's first book challenges the hectic lifestyle which so many families are caught up in today. It suggests a framework within which to truly be a family.

Habits shape our lives. And this great book, suggests we create wonderful habits to shape our family life. I'd like to say more, but as this fine work encouraged me, I am off to spend time with my family

As a historian of anthropology, I looked forward to reading this book. The relationship between Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead has been subject to much speculation. No scholar has seriously analyzed the impact the relationship had on the two women in question or American anthropology in general. While several biographies are available about Benedict and Mead, none delve deeply into the relationship they shared throughout their lives. Having finished the text in question, I am torn. For, as a historical analysis of Benedict and Mead the text is superficial. The author, Hilary Lapsley, a New Zealand psychologist who teaches women's studies, has a tendency to skate above the surface and does not delve deeply enough into the respective controversies Benedict and Mead became embroiled in during their careers.

This critique however is rather specialized. For the vast majority of readers unfamiliar with the intricacies of the history of American anthropology will be impressed by a sympathetic portrait of two of the most influential women in anthropology to date. The fact that Benedict and Mead were lovers is now well known and their "friendship" is contextualized within women's studies, feminist psychology, and lesbian studies. The author, herself a lesbian, adds great insight into the nature of their relationship for she points out it was not condcuted in isolation. It is her examination of Benedict's and Mead's "friendship cirlces" that I found particularly insightful. By friendship the author is refering to the twentieth century version of what Carol Smith-Rosenberg called "the female world of love and ritual". The author also does not dwell too much on the sexual aspect of their relationship, a trap that might have sold more books but infringed on the dignity of Benedict and Mead.

In short, Lapsley's book is not a biography in any sense but a particularly personal portrait of two women, friends and lovers throughout their lives. As such, she sheds new light on their work and lives for both those interested in the history of anthropology and those with a general interest in Benedict and Mead.

I found this book extraordinary good reading. It reviews their lives during childhood and moves thru both Mead's and Benedict's lives until Benedict's death in 1948. The last chapter does provide information about what happened to the leading players in the lives of both women in later years. I found it much easier to read than Howard's book, which is completely different, with lots of stories about Mead but very difficult to follow chronologically. The author's background in psychology is evident and I recommend the book highly.

I really enjoyed this book as a girl--of course I was nuts about any horse book... Does anyone remember a book about a Pony of the Americas called "Fabulous," or a sequel to "Pagan" called "Bandoleer?"

This book, written almost forty years ago, is a wonderful story about a boy, his family and, of course his horse, Pagan. Set in a rural area of Montana, this easy to read book follows a boy's adventures with his horse. Through these adventures the reader finds a young man wrestling with issues that haunt adolesents even today in an urban environment. Through a heart warming tale the book illustrates the value of strong family and community ties. It serves as a reminder of how hard work and a strong community together can develop a productive young man. One of the best. A must read for all those who endorse those strengths that make America great.

To put it bluntly, this book is garbage. The language is so dry and the tone of the anthropologist so condescending, it makes one picture Ms. Benedict smoking a pipe in an armchair of a library somewhere.

This book should come under fire because Benedict let others do much of the research for her. This is a theme revisited in many of her works (i.e. "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword"). She received much flack for it, as well she should. Anthropology lived vicariously is not anthropology at all.

This book describes several diverse cultures in depth and detail. The emphasis is on overall world view and the conceptual foundations of each culture. The writing is lucid, involving and evocative. This book sheds more light on the issue of what is basic to all human nature, and what is culturaly influenced, then any other I know.

While the historical context that is so lucidly described in the introduction to this translation is fascinating in itself, the rule resonates with a disciplined approach to spiritual development in a communal setting. Placed in an appropriate historical context the "rule" is remarkable for its attention to physical and spiritual detail in the structured life of a monastery. Anyone interested in monasticsm or church history will be well rewarded by reading this.

Benedict, having dropped out of university because he viewed the life there as degenerated, goes into the bush and makes his abode in a crack in the side of a mountain. Upon coming out he writes the moral code for the next 1,400 years! This is that code or set of rules.

Some of the book is dry - namely the end of it which goes over seating arangements for meals and other architectural details but the historical end of it is interesting and so are his guidelines for clean living in a monastic setting (which one can employ almost anywhere with the right focus).

In recent decades, under the influence of feminism, the publishing industry has adopted the myth that English words ending in "-man" are sex-specific. While this is absolutely untrue as a matter of etymology (in fact, all people are "men," while only some are "wo-men," which is a subset of "men"), otherwise educated people feel the need to parade their acceptance of this stupidity.

Michael Les Benedict's otherwise serviceable textbook on American constitutional history is a case in point. Both in the Introduction and in a footnote to chapter 1, Benedict apologizes for using the word "Englishmen," as in "the Rights of Englishmen," which he says reflected the "sexist reality" of a bygone age.

Really, this is nonsense on stilts. Not only English, but over two dozen other Indo-European languages have neuter words for "person" that are also used for the masculine. In each case, the feminine subset of "people" is denoted via a modified version of the neuter (or masculine).

If people like Benedict really wanted to get rid of sex-specific language, they would cease using _feminine_ forms, all of which are modified forms of masculine/neuter words (e.g., fe-male, act-ress, host-ess). They don't really care to do that, however; it does not have anything like the Pharisaical thrill of using a neologism in place of a perfectly good, old, English word ("mailcarrier" for "mailman," "server" for "waitress," "English people" for "Englishmen," etc.).

At the beginning of chapter 7, "Andrew Jackson, Democracy, and 'State Rights,'" Benedict says, "The late 1820s and 1830s witnessed the development of a strong belief in the character and intelligence of the common man and woman known as 'Jacksonian Democracy.'" There is no evidence that anyone associated with Andrew Jackson had such views. In fact, to the extent that anyone had them, they were Whigs, Garrisonians, and other OPPONENTS of "Jacksonian Democracy," and they were (from the perspective of 2003) amazingly few.

Readers of this book certainly get a feeling for Benedict's politics and personality from these features. Other than that, the book is generally useful.

This book offers a solid introduction to various aspects of the history of the U.S. Constitution --including its origins, its formation, and its interpretation by the Supreme Court over the past 200-plus years. While it has the feel of a college textbook, I think the book deserves a broader audience. In very clear, if unadorned writing, Benedict covers important cases decided by the Supreme Court, and describes the evolution of judicial doctrine regarding the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution. Unlike most books about constitutional history, this one has the added virtue of attempting to relate jurisprudential developments to the broader historical context in which they occurred. Benedict does not try too hard to conceal his own preferences regarding certain decisions of the Court. For example, it is apparent that he is generally supportive of the Warren Court revolution in criminal procedure and other areas of constitutional law, and is opposed to some of the retrenchment that has occurred in the Rehnquist Court. At the same time, Benedict seems to take pains to include citations to legal or historical scholars with whom he disagrees in the excellent bibliographic essays that appear at the end of each chapter of the book. I view this book as a very good reference and as a stimulus to further reading (including Benedict's own book about the Johnson impeachment, which Judge Richard Posner cited in his book regarding the Clinton impeachment).

I am a lawyer who has argued in the Supreme Court, and in my view this book provides a solid introduction to constitutional history. The book seems to have been intended primarily as a textbook for undergraduate courses, but despite its textbook feel I think it can be of interest to a wider audience. Though not written with a great deal of flair, it offers clear descriptions of many important Supreme Court cases, and provides a coherent overview of the broader developments in the Court's jurisprudence regarding the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution. Unlike most constitutional histories, Benedict's book has the added benefit of attempting to relate the Court's decisions to the historical context in which they were made. The author strikes me as scholarly, but at the same time he does have a point of view about a number of the Court's decisions which he makes little effort to conceal. For example, Benedict leaves no doubt that he is generally supportive of the Warren Court revolution, and disfavors some of the retrenchment that has taken place in the Rehnquist Court. That said, he seems to have gone to great pains in the excellent bibliographic essays that appear at the conclusion of each of his chapters to include historical or legal literature that offers different assessments than his own. I regard this book as a very good resource, and a stimulus to further reading (including more detailed studies by Benedict himself).