McLuhan calls this is a reversal in his Tetrad, but the important thing for me is how we are defining "expensive" simply as a monetary instrument, this suggests that the primary view of what is expensive is through the pocketbook of material currency rather than the most important currency of life which is the flow of human value. Expensive things therefore are not anywhere close to being expensive in comparison to living an expensive life. If indeed expensive thing make awareness of life less "expensive" then technology isn't the pariah that McLuhan sought each of us to understand. In that regard writing this comment amounts to being expensive if all I question in life is that which I already know.

Due to improvements in technology, information, and communication technology has become extremely affordable, if not free altogether.

David, "freeing" is not the same as "free". I agree that business and technology has a great potential to provided us with blessings, if we so design this in our own individual lives, so that our tools that can establish greater freedom, but I would prefer to stress on the "freeing" rather than what is free. We cannot afford to simply fall in love with our "toys", instead IMHO the connection point requires a paradigm shift and when the connection point becomes our "joys", only then does free become "freeing". If life was "affordable" there would not be such a thing as a digital divide. The fact that there is an ever growing digital divide suggests to me that we are focusing far too much on those things that are "free", rather than those values we can inculcate with practical wisdom that become "freeing", therefore I personally think we should reexamine the meaning of that which is expensive and that which is an expense......M.

the most important things are not things and they are still free.

Intelligent people are needed to gain competitive advantage.
Technology if used correctly, can free the business brains to think.
I find it hard to put together the criteria of performance we expect from our new hires and the extent to which corporate land goes to snuff out the very enthusiasm that we hired in the first place.

If we pay people to think, then give them time to do so. Free liberal, forward thinking people not from accountability but from the mind numbing repetitive processes. Pay people to do a job, not to keep hours. Embrace the virtual team concept and gain competitive advantage.

Brian's response echoes the mind of Victor Frankl in the "Man's Search for Meaning". Yes, we are free to make choices and yes, the yes, the one thing we can change or control is our thinking, but the freeing aspect of what Brian said still comes down to application, whether those things are love or freedom. What Lee Solon addresses is the environment. "Important Things" exist in the environment and this relationship between us and our environment was explored by Jiddu Krishnamurti. The problem with such exploration is that Krishnamurti wasn't providing anyone a cue card to deal with this environment - he was essentially saying "explore this yourself, don't take my word for it". What Lee Solon has spoken about serves as a source of competitive advantage for most companies and so if Peter Y. Hong's statement is true, it is only true because we do not understand or put thought to our own environment. Where I would differ from Lee is that it is not upto organizations to free the mind from numbing repetitive processes. Mihalyi Csikzentmihayli has shown in his research that man can achieve flow from what others would see as numbing repetitive processes, but Lee is as right as Brian is, it is all about how we think. The bottom line for me is that if the environment is predominantly about the mechanical, it is about things. If the environment is a biological relationship, it is about people. What is the essence of technology today than a discussion about the mechanical that is disguised as biological. The most mechanical constructs of the environment are discussed by Marshall McLuhan, he called media the "Mechanical Bride" and guess what, it still is. McLuhan was right about how our nervous system has been extended into the environment, and how the electric age has made us tribal. McLuhan's formulation was simple, he said seek to understand this environment, and that was Frankl's refrain and it was Csiksentmihayli's as well as Krishnamurti's. If we are truly biological we can walk away with better thoughts, but if we are still mechanical, then we are not having an intelligent relationship with our environment, we are merely seeking professional acclaim, and so all I am doing here is thinking out aloud and so these are my thoughts and they should not be mechanically read......M.

"but Lee is as right as Brian is, it is all about how we think."
respectively i appreciate your comments but there may me a misunderstanding - to clarify:
i used to believe it is all about how we think until recently, i was pointed in a clearer direction to truth. it is thinking that gets in the way of what is most important. right thinking is important and has it's place but should be controlled/used by the being - not the controller or user of the being. thanks for the dialog - what was the question:)