WELCOME! THIS PAGE IS CREATED AS A RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SOME HAVE COME WITH AS REGARDS THE CHIEF I*D*E*A OF THE YOGA6D.ORG SEARCH ENGINE, THE YOGA6D.ORG/look.htm PORTAL SITE, AND THE RELATED, NUMEROUS PROJECTS << . . . THE QUEST FOR PURE BEING -- In a society oriented towards a reckless pursuit of money and similar overcoming of other deficiencies, what does it take to have a dignified spiritual lifestyle? In "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", the I-persona, presumably reflecting at least some of the views of the author (Robert Pirsig), speaks of the importance of studying maps before one sets out for a good ride. One will then pay attention to roads which aren't straight, and which appears extraordinarily cumbersome ways of getting anywhere: and choose just these. This book was (as Mr Pirsig explained when he visited Oslo a long time ago, in connection with the translation to Norwegian by Pax Forlag, an arrangement including Live Slang, Pax, and Dagfinn Follesdal, professor of philosophy, as well as a local motorcycle club) published after more than one hundred publishing companies turned it down. It is entirely unreadable, unless you regard ramblings over Aristotle as readable: but it that's quite alright, as it doesn't set out to be readable. It is still a good story, and the parts of it that are readable are eminently well framed by all the hazy reflections over quality. One can skip twenty of these pages at a time and still consider oneself an ardent reader of the book. It is speaking well for those who consider humanity worth betting on that it then sold in the millions, and is by now regarded as an undying cult classic. Why would anyone set out on a path that is 'less travelled on', that isn't straight, that doesn't get one from A to B fast? To some, it is a mystery that anyone could even contemplate this approach to action. To others, it is a mystery that it ever could be a mystery: they consider it essential to move upon paths where the means are the end, where the process of travelling is by far more important than where one is travelling to. More generally, we can think of the two types of travelling-through-life folks by means of the concept of 'being' versus 'deficiency', as the psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed. To do something because it gaps a need, is 'deficiency motivation'. To do something because it is rewarding in itself is 'being motivation', also called 'abundancy mode' or 'abundancy motivation'. The A-to-B types of folks want to get to B because, they imagine, there isn't enough of whatever they want at A, and presumably more at B. But then there are those who set out to travel because the process itself is a meditation and a joy, if only they are allowed to proceed in ways which offer solitude, excitement, unusualness, and connection to the wholeness of life, to spirituality, and to the physical matter, such as the physical matter of -- in Pirsig's (not mine) case, a motorcycle, -- or the physical matter of any other things engaged in the travel. The person rushing from A to B to do something is probably of the kind that doesn't LOOK before acting: nor is there any much thought -- "Is this the right thing to do, in this universe, now?"; "Are there other ways of doing this?"; "Does the singing of the birds suggest another, not obvious way?" -- etc. Instead, they leap at whatever they want to leap at, and if they are supposed to press buttons, they stretch out their hands before they think, and click before imagining that there could be something entirely wrong about clicking just there. This not-just-fearless-but-careless action type may get rewards or punishments or no reaction at all for all the action, and there is no doubt occasions in a human life in which this type of action is called for. However, if mindfulness, soul, spirit, deep alive consciousness and penetrating quietude within, are things that sets us, as human beings, apart from more primitive forms of existence, then one can argue that the rushing ahead from A to B isn't the proper mode of being. It is very clearly 'deficiency' mode. Something is lacking, and something is going to lack, still, after getting to whereever one thinks one is getting. However, there is the thing called money. For all except the excessively few who belong to the class that can be called 'the idle rich', money-aquisition influences all levels of behaviour and thinking so deeply that it's hard indeed to have a meaningful quest for a life in unity with the being mode all day long, each and every day, however beautiful a vision it may be. For most, getting money means relating to a society which is through and through characterised by deficiency modes of every kind. Getting a job in such a society means, in many cases, to make oneself one of the gang of the deficiency mode people, where rushing is good, and 'thinking about life' a luxury one cannot afford. It is true that some sects here and there are trying to live in a way that involves no compromises, even in the area of money. It is said that the Buddha adviced those most advanced in spiritual seeking to become beggars. But one thing is to attempt such a thing in a society in which there is a general affluence -- as presumably, to some extent, could be said of at least some parts of ancient India -- and, moroever, a society in which the concept of a spiritual beggar is considered with extreme reverence, as being something worthy of admiration -- and another is to imagine adopting such an attitude where the beggars are the saddest spectacle in the world. But the point, that we more abstractly can pick out from this, is that the question of monetary survival is not just now, but also some two thousand five hundred years ago, considered to be a fundamental challenge for earnest seekers. There is a trend, and indeed, especially since the late 1960s and 1970s, there have been many trends, in which it is suggested that society is able, now, if one just thinks about it for a while, to offer such jobs as combine being with monetary income. This is reflected in the superficial, and to some, terrible language of the most 'hip' companies, that seek to blend the notion of salvation with the notion of having an employment in just this company: they seek people who have a 'passion' for this company, and more such nonsense. Perhaps it is a fairer notion to assume that the only companies that can ever get near being truly hip, are those that are entirely without any inertia -- thus, nobody in the company works there for years, and those who work there don't even work there for much of a week: these companies are like mountain streams, always new, new not because of themselves, but because the people who visit the company in order to carry out a piece of work for it have gathered perhaps some meditative refreshment from entirely different sources, and they get out of the company again before they have exhausted their inner reservoir of mental abundance. For instance, I know of a store where, every saturday, but, as far as I know, no other days, a girl works, who certainly isn't a supermodel but that's only a fault of her own ambition. The fact that she works in one of the least charming groceries, and probably earns next to nothing, makes one think of her as a flower that has penetrated stone -- and though the company still is as unhip as it possibly could be, one cannot argue against the possibility that going there at saturdays has a certain glamour to it. And so one could argue that an element of deficiency mode should perhaps be adopted as a cloak, in order to gain some money -- without being any much of a beggar -- from this terrible, corrupt, and rather pointless society of ours, with all its absolute nonsense done also by means of technology and internet. A degree of participation may be necessary. And it may be necessary for those who are actively proclaiming the 'being mode' as primary to realise that unless we give some room for the deficiency mode, something much more serious can arise: a number of people may start actually CONFUSING the two modes. They may think that they have a being mode 'more or less' the whole time, while in fact they have a very grave case of deficiency mode. Their entire set of actions, from morning to night, is self-centered, goal-motivated, and infiltrated by money-greed, but in ways that escape their own attention. They may try and set themselves up as gurus, but do not even know that they are trying to do so; they may enroll themselves as friends, collaborators or even disciples of some others, again thinking it is their being mode that compells them to do so, not seeing that this, too, is all a rushing from A to B, a bridging of the mental gap within them of deficiency; it is tainted by little thoughts and by motives they haven't sorted out. And all this only because they started out proclaiming that they wanted being mode all day long, without being tainted by the deficiency mode. In order to test oneself -- whether one is willing to do something in pure being mode -- one should first, then, admit that stepping into a deficiency mode some part of the day may make sense. Then, as one steps out of it, one must probe. Can one, for instance, find it meaningful to focus on something which is beautiful in itself, as according to one's own heart, even if it gets one nowhere -- as it appears, at first -- in the social realm? In other words, can one look aside not only from money questions, but also from the quest to overcome loneliness, restlessness and so on, -- and bring oneself into contact with something entirely worth focussing on, regardless of the possible absence of positive effects of a goal- getting type? And, let's at once say: we do not mean merely as a twenty minutes meditation. That's not enough. Twenty minutes of anything sounds like an exercise. To test oneself profoundly, we must grab a portion of one's wakeful life, and put the test there: and not just once, and not just entirely privately, but in some ways on-going and at-display. This may in fact make some people turn away from oneself: and that's fine. Being mode is like that: it scares those addicted to the deficiency mode away. Let them be scared. Being mode takes care of itself. . . . >> Onwards in this text we talk about the questions of nudity and what's valuable as impressions, in additions to such as good music, for decent living, good work, splendid entertainment, and also good spirituality. But let us cover some other questions also -- before turning to the fascinating theme of nudism, buddhism, and other such things! So in the next shortest essay the word 'context' and 'contextual' is used, in connection with the phrase 'search engines'. This is something that gets more important the longer the digital era has kept on, and the more programs have been made that might seem, if one looks at them without reflection, to mimick mind or mimick natural human behaviour --but a little reflection and analysis would show that nothing man-made is really like humans, nothing is 'android', in other words. Put simply, a keyword search engine searches up individual words that it locates here and there in the world wide web, regardless of what other words are around in those locations. If you type in a word like "WODEHOUSE", you may find, for instance, that the location www.gutenberg.org does have some Wodehouse texts. Then, inside www.gutenberg.org, if this has an 'internal search engine' you can type several words, and pinpoint an exact document. Or if you type "IBSEN" into www.wikipedia.org, it may guide you to a page where you will find a link to a brief characterisation of one of Henrik Ibsen's play "An Enemy of the People", where -- if you consult the original full text for this such as at www.gutenberg.org -- a Dr Stockmann gives the question we've translated below ("Who constitute the majority of citizens in a country? Is it the wise people, or is it the stupid people?"). In contrast, a contextual search engine does much more work and attempts to single out just those locations that have more than one word gathered together -- a whole 'context', not just a 'keyword'. This is a work that has the same problems with it as 'artificial intelligence' has -- AI is, put roughly, a nonexisting, illusory approach to computing. A good search engine, in the opinion of the makers of the Yoga6d.org search engine, provides moderate help not overly strong help, so that each exploration of new knowledge requires further action in a diversity of sites. (Inside a site, a contextual search may not at all be any "artificial intelligence" bogus, because the text gathered inside that site may perfectly well be organised so that they allow an efficient mechanical algorithmic search on more than one word at the same time, without having to simulate context.) Well, that was a long explanation -- anyway! -- here's the little essay, clipped from our yoga6d.org/economy.htm: << . . . THE GREAT IMPORTANCE OF THE NOT OVERLY HELPFUL COMPUTER -- Beware the contextual, 'super-simple', over-efficient search engines spanning the world wide web, what they do to your mind There's little doubt that if you felt you had to work out something like Newton's laws of friction and force and such stuff all from scratch, AND you actually did work out these laws, then you would have gathered a piece of knowledge that would stick more firmly to your mind than any piece of knowledge merely suggested to you in a book. So that's one extreme -- to work it all out for oneself. The other extreme is not to bother to work at all, but let as much as possible be done such as by machines. This other extreme is as foolish as the first. The wise point of view is to be willing to work to keep the mind alive and knowledgable, in small as in great things, but not set aside all and any help to that work. There are degrees of help. A moderate degree of help is ok. Too much help to the mind is a stupification of the mind. The dawn of computers in humankind must not become a stupification of humankind: this is, at the general level, something I think we all can agree on, as a point of wisdom. But the direct implication of this is that we should consciously steer away from using the too helpful tools. Even if we admit that computers can have a role in many forms of verbal learning, we must then allow the component of own thinking and own work -- beyond the work of typing in a question on a line and pressing a suitable button afterwards. BBC World Service reported, some time ago, about a piece of scientific study indicating just the above point: when we use computers, we tend to learn more at just those points where the computers offer some resistance. In other words, as for knowledge relative to computer use, we find that we're in an 'easy come, easy go' situation. Let us also say that although, as human beings interested in the common good for humanity, we don't want humanity stupified, it is not in general the case that all businesses would prosper equally from a development in which humanity is, at the level of mind, awakened and constantly sharpened. In particular, it seems pretty clear that a number of advertisement approaches are oriented in particular to those in humanity who are perhaps worthy of being called 'less bright'. It is easier to sell things to those who are more easily convinced, -- also called 'gullible' -- and if there were means to make a larger percent of humanity more susceptible to suggestions, more easily convinced -- a more gullible humanity -- then a number of business bosses would, if they have little sense of larger spiritual values, easily support just those means. In particular, it is not surprising if we find that somewhat megalomaniac advertisement companies would be quite happy if they could find legal, effective ways of stupifying humanity. And indeed, providing more and more help for humanity in finding out just what is the case with less and less need for own thought is just such a way. It is at this point that the quickly swinging moods coming upon the youth of any society is to be betted on: if this youth suddenly regards it as tacky and in various ways quite distasteful and simply not worthy of being thought of as upbeat to use contextual search engines spanning the world wide web whenever they wonder about anything, the aforementioned stupification of humanity will be avoided. . . . >> P.S. As for much more in depth about why digital machines can't do AI, consult the essay about Goedel's work, which is found in the 'essay' section below somewhere if you search within the page at: fic3inf3.htm And as for how it is that attempts to go beyond digital into the socalled 'quantum analog' have never produced, and will never produce, a better computer than the conventional digital one -- despite attempts, and much money poured into it, and misused -- please consult the essays about the quantum phenomena which are linked to at the economy.htm column. There are also writings, even in the form of a book that more or less clearly show similar points, if you look around at the links that are at these pages, for those who wish to understand the quantum phenomena in light of the informal theory called 'super-model theory', and which, in the understanding of this writer, does the job better than any formal theory does account for it, and indeed, better than any formal theory CAN account for it. After the next essay comes the notions on nudity and spirituality and why non-censorship must be the noble stance here. But first, a rather longer essay, which speaks about Tolkien's books as infinitely superior to movies about Tolkien, and the more general themes of why Internet should not be about videos and movies AT ALL, but about texts, images, music and other things which activate us holistically -- in the sense of 'yoga', which in Sanskrit means 'whole, pertaining to the whole', also 'healing' -- in addition to more flavours of meaning. This, then, explains more of what is emphasised in this yoga6d.org/look.htm search engine and in the search engine portal. << . . . GOOD FOR THE BRAIN: TEXTS, IMAGES, MUSIC, EXERCISE; BAD FOR THE BRAIN: VIDEOS -- There's only one way to activate the brain, and that's by using it, not drowning it in recordings A long time ago, perhaps for the lack of other things to say, there was a type of slogan, or motto, that went like this -- perhaps some are still using it -- "The medium is the message". It seems to be an idea, shared by a vast proportion of the technology-using part of the population, that any idea, if it can be spread at all, can be spread by means of videos; and any thought, if it can be received at all, can be received by means of watching videos. And I wish to say, Nay, the medium is the message. When you're watching videos, what you're doing is watching videos, and that's that. Videos constitute a medium that is uniquely unable to convey any pure, interesting, uplfiting message of any deep type. I don't want to quote again the numerous studies on the level of brain activation that compares how the brain is activated when a book is read, something is watched on video or television, something is heard on the radio (showing that video ranks lowest). Let's take something as simple as a so-called 'animated cartoon', compared to a cartoon with talk bubbles or such, perhaps as printed on inexpensive pulp paper. Let's imagine a child leaning back in a sofa watching and hearing an animated version of something that first existed in drawn form. There is no text there, so that means that one doesn't have to bother about activating the text-reading part of the brain. The sounds -- the squeeking and such -- are pleasant indulging the brain with a minute stimulation of the auditory area. There is no reason to visualise what is going on from one scene to the next as when a cartoon or comics strip or comics book gives one scene after another, filling out the gaps by mental visualisation. For the gaps are already filled by those who have made the animated cartoon. It is true, perhaps, that the cartoon is animated, but the brain isn't. Statistics affirm this, on the average. There is no doubt that if you have read a dozen books by an author, it could be interesting to hear, not just read text, by the same author, if only for ten minutes; and perhaps even watching a recording of her or his body language. In such a case, even a video would definitely provide a stimulation. In the normal case, there's little doubt that all the extra work that goes into making a video, and all the shortcuts, all the eaten camels and all that, will make the video an exceedingly poor substitute for almost every other kind of brain activity. One thing is to know this and admit this and still use videos, and watch such as fiction movies. Another thing altogheter is to be faced with what seems to be a modern fact: the intense arrogance associated with those who have familiarity of themes mainly through videos, news clips, movies, and game 3d animations, and who claim that this is more than enough, and that there's little more to be known. There's no evidence like the first-hand evidence you can generate yourself. I wish to call attention not to Star Wars, which was based on extracts from numerous earlier myths and scifi tales and then put together into a new movie script -- a script made for the purpose of making a movie -- but rather, to J R R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. This series of fiction stories, deriving in part from the same Norse myths as underlaid Wagner's giant operas, but reset ingeniously in the mythic third age forests of a rather medieval Britain, was written by Tolkien with an attention to details that can never fail to marvel. Indeed, Tolkien's attention to details was so great that the whole thought of putting anything of the story, let alone the whole story, to movie form, should at once be considered not merely an indecent proposal, but one of the worst proposals of the world. What has happened, of course, is that while these movies have, to an extreme degree, 'popularised' Tolkien, they have also created a veil between the population and the books that didn't exist earlier on. The galaxy of details and finer shades of meaning in the highly spiritual and subtle thinker J R R Tolkien have become twisted into a sensationalist ball of fire, powered by the world of nerdian 3d simulation programmers and given adequately rediculous interpretations at enough points that it could make a hit at the box offices. People, in a plural sense, as far as video watchers go, now happen to 'know' Tolkien. Only they don't. They don't do anything of the sort. They know, in fact, much less than if they had never heard of him. Because such is the arrogance of the video era: it imparts not only a deceptive type of familiarity, devoid of the insights that own first-hand work with the material would give, when calling on own head and heart, but also a false sense of knowing, that conceals ignorance. Indeed (as the philosopher Ann Kerwin and others with her suggested in different contexts some time ago), it would be more wisdom in standing by the stance of ignorance; for the assumption of non-ignorance is maybe the worst folly of all. It is of course a well known thing that movies don't adequately reflect books written for the love of it. This is not only the case with Tolkien, of course, but even applies to how Ian Fleming saw his James Bond character made into more or less a circus clown by the movies he let his books inspire. Anyone who thinks she or he knows James Bond simply by having seen some of the classic Bond movies should spend some time with Ian Fleming's brilliant, witty, often sarcastic, and always technically excellent writing style -- and there will be nothing of the technological clownisness that was added to the movies, and which, no doubt at that time, seemed to be a good idea and was impressive enough in the early decades of TV. But Tolkien is a more serious issue. Tolkien set out to bring about a holistically thought, spiritually meaningful myth properly situated right in his homeland, and for him, it is clear that it was a calling, and, as innumerable writers don't stop pointing out -- a calling that he achieved masterfully. There's more spiritual depth in what he did than in most professorial books either on spirituality or on philosophy, whether published in the academic settings or outside of them, for a wider public, or inside a theological clan of sorts. Tolkien, who believed in God and who was a christian, managed to put both God and Christ inside his novels but did it so that few noticed it. For he did not believe in going along a preset range of names. He invented languages and name-mythologies as he went along, and wanted people to uncover 'the gold that does not always glitter', to paraphrase Bilbo's words about Aragorn. The movies haven't received the damning criticisms they deserve; on the contrary, in an era of too much videos, these have by many otherwise thoughtful critical writers been crowned the king of videos. But had Tolkien somehow been woken up and given a glimpse of the movies, he would no doubt had been shocked to the core. Their mere existence is such as to make everything worse: before there was no myth of the kind Tolkien had made, then Tolkien made his myth, but then the so-called "Tolkien movies" came and made the golden myth into the steel of box office coins, and left it at that -- a mere orc taking over the ring brought by Bilbo and Frodo to destruction; let that orc's productions and popularity vanish, and the lure of power-rings again be destroyed! There is no consolation whatsoever for Tolkien that it has made Tolkien popular. Tolkien didn't set out chiefly to be popular, however magical and mysterious that statement may seem to those who are influenced by the billion-dollar-making digital advertisement agencies with their biased use of numbers and statistics to serve the god of cash. Tolkien set out to make certain forms of insights come around in humanity. He didn't entertain the notion of the hobbits to have a digital era movie-maker transform it into a little clownish figure in a Disney style; nor did he entertain the Gandalf shape so that those impressed by cheap magical effects on the movie-screen could be impressed and dazed and leave it at that. He didn't deny himself, or the reader of the books, the little pleasures, but it would have made him turn over in his grave to see that those little pleasures would become the chief minutes of the petty few hours allotted to a movie supposedly reflecting his life-work, and arrogantly named after it. In that sense, there's much more to be said for the works of George Lucas, with his Star Wars: he didn't say that this is going to cover Asimov's Foundation, or such and such construction by other scifi authors such as A C Clarke -- for the better or worse, (as far as I know) he didn't acknowledge such sources very much but rather made up new names and all that. But in that sense, he didn't smear his box office stuff all over some of the greatest literary productions in the 20th century. That he then sold the stuff to the Disney corporation that already has spewed its idiocy over the X-Men pulp fiction legacy with a number of quite unhealthy, unfashionable, thick-set, shortlegged people who would have made Kitty Pryde have wrinkled her cute nose, shows that he didn't take himself nor his Star Wars all that seriously, unlike the nuts who made a religion out of his jedis -- out of, to be clear about the concept, the Second Foundationers in the Asimov trilogy. Lucas then gave the money for that sale to idealistic institutions, also a pretty good idea: it underlined a relaxed attitude, after all, to what he had done, and a wish to refocus on the myth aspect, which, after all, had influenced the young Lucas also by his friendship with Joseph Campbell. In that sense, Lucas did something involving far less of a pretence than the movie-makers behind the present Tolkien productions, the so-called "Tolkien" productions. Campbell, by the way, was wrong in saying that no myth works anymore. Tolkien's myth still works: so does the hidden christanity, not the catholic nor lutherian christanity, nor the christanity belonging to this or that sect, mormonic or Jehova's Witnesses or such, but the subtle, not-only-western-but-also-indian style of spirituality which extracts the best parts of the classical texts and discards the rubbish about the devil and about the condemnation of the sexual. The fight between good and non-good is not fight between good and evil but between good and the slightly lesser good. This is shown, too, in how Tolkien treats the Gollum character, who helps in the moment even Frodo becomes too sick to be as good as he set out to be. In order to read J R R Tolkien, then, one must first of all engage in a self-hypnosis of forgetting whatever one has seen of the movies, if anything. Few are so blessed as having seen nothing at all of them, not even a clip; but even they may have read something about Tolkien that really is about those movies, not about Tolkien. Then, after reading the Lord of the Rings a sufficient number of times -- after some years -- together with a large number of other also philosophical works, you may be able to begin, honestly, and nonarrogantly, to say that you 'know' Tolkien. You will also then probably have been cured of all desire to ever watch movies again, or mostly any type of video, ever again: for your brain, having been turned on, cranked alive by the books of Tolkien and other masters, tells you to shut off the anti-brain device called 'video'. . . . >> Well! Then, as promised, we arrive at notes the importance of freedom of exploration of thought and the absence of censorship on porn. (Let us just, for the record, say that the pulp fiction cartoon series, with a game score component, which is included with our G15 Avenuege PC production and software, sets out a brain-stimulating way of doing this which hasn't the negative features of videos nor of 3d simulations.) First of all, let's note that the human brain has not just its usually somewhat more verbal, analytic, logical side (for most people, the left side of the brain, wired to the right hand and right side of the body), but also a more musical, dance-and-rhythm-and-emotion oriented and visual side (for most people, the right side of the brain, wired to the left side of the body including the heart). Then again, the backside of the brain is associated with visual perception, sensation, also sexual sensation -- a lot of nerves on the backside of the brain up to the top centre are wired there to the sexual organs and lips and nipples -- while the forefront is associated more both with planning, foresight, carefulness but also with strong action, also sexual action, muscular action, e.g. as in dance or martial arts. To be a full human being with a fully awakened mind means that one engages in meaningful holistic challenges covering the whole range of brain activity. For instance, in a week rich in stimulation one may do not only such as reading and dabble a bit with programming, but also in drawing nudes. In exercise, one may turn to martial arts and also dance, as well as more detailed musuclar work such as electronics tinning -- what we call 'Elsketch work' or associated chemistry what we call 'Atomlite work'; all these aspects of the human being is cultivated in each student in what we call the G15 Multiversity approach. In expressing new forms of activity, we would naturally seek new forms of impression. But then we must have access to a large range of experiences, including mind-stimulating pulp art drawn cartoons with a game-like feature, beautiful variation in cafees which have life in them not just during weekends and not always associated with alcohol, experiences of various parts of nature, some more tamed and others more incredible like a horizon line of the ocean without any end to it, a library of books so big it will stretch our minds in every possible sort of direction, jobs which can vary often enough one year to another that we find new powers in ourselves, and to meet a variety of people who are not all falling for the same false fashion at the same time, but which exhibit a real and lively individuality without meaningful constraints. And, also, we would want art stimuli, including photo stimuli, to evoke artistic powers and new work energies and fresh ideas about life and God and reincarnation and what not in ourselves. We would want photos which aren't pre-selected according to a common mediocre set of patterns in a way that makes them familiar already before they've seen, photos not merely made by robots or by those who think like robots. We must come upon freshness in experience so as to enlist new powers in ourselves. The chief programmer of the Yoga6d.org search engine, Aristo Tacoma, alias Henning Braten Reusch, and with other aliases as well, has spend a lot of time in conversation with artists, and also has had a kind of apprenticeship under more than one artist for a considerable time, before engaging in own regular artistic works, such as painting and drawing. In this perspective, what is input to sexual activity as porn and what is input to artistic activity such as drawings or paintings naturally -- and rightly so! -- blurs. Though 'NSFW' -- "Not Suitable For Work" -- is by a cultural convention applied to the most obvious porn-like of images, it is nevertheless so that some artistic activity certainly is work and some of this activity certainly can have a great advantage of porn-like images. But what range of porn-like images? If this range is limited to what leftist women liberation political activitists deem to be 'properly moral' images, then what type of art emerges from that? In contrast, we must evoke a willingness to engage in art that connects to the whole human being in a non-leftist, non-marxist, and thereby also non-atheist sense -- that the spiritual whole human being from birth is both a temple of God and the muses, and also, by virtue of this wholeness, a piece of matter which is at once both spiritual and sexual. This sensuality mustn't be censored away as input to the artist's mind. And self-censorship in this area we've seen too much of -- thereby we find also that the G15 PMN Yoga6dorg programming language enterprise has in it a natural calling for the freedom from any too much self-censorship. This is the language which, of course, underlies the Yoga6d.org search engine, in its FDB routines. For questions of the extent to which we embrace the whole human being, from birth to death, as a sexual, not just spiritual human being, and that it is the artist's plight, and indeed also a healthy thing, to go beyond any petty morals denying the wholeness of sexuality from blending with the activation of the spiritual mind, we can also say this: it is part of the spiritual quest to deny fragmentation; to come upon wholeness -- e.g., along the lines indicated in (my mentor's) "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" by David Bohm, but expanded upon along the lines far more developed in such as the traditions of tantric kundalini yoga and in certain strands of mahayana buddhism, as well as jainism, as well as in features of mostly every other religion. That this is at odds with the augustinian and, even more, the lutherian attempt to divorce the human being from the spiritual, and that it may be at odds with the laws in some societies, makes us say: you should be fully aware of the laws in your country, and relate to them with dignity, even as you work, utilising whatevery you may have of freedom of expression to change what must be changed according to your intuitive perception and your own experience through your own heart and with your own logic. But one thing ought to be clear: nobody can meaningfully claim that you are breaking any law if you in private watch a variety of computer display elements also of porn, and reflect over these, so as to make up your own mind. (Paying money to a group producing such porn, or even communicating any details with them, is legally another issue altogether, but that, too, one can legally work to change -- for instance by totally removing all banning of prostitution at the level of societal laws, which are amongst the most hypocritical laws in existence.) Remember the quote, always, from a character in an Ibsenplay. We have given one version of it somewhere else, here is another way to translate the same (from Norwegian): "Who are in majority, is it the wise, or it is the fools?" -- Henrik Ibsen And then, having covered the general ground -- how the wholeness of the human being, a born temple of the divine, reflected in the greatest artworks and, by virtue of artistic work throughout the ages, coming to light by getting a sense of an also meditative order through the order of nature, also the nature of the splendid young nude human being, usually a girl -- we must also then ask: what type of society do we want, relative to nudity? What do we WANT to be the education of our youngest, and how do we wish that their minds evolve as they grow up? If I can be personal about a couple of points, I will at once saying that when I went to school as a kid, I learned that most about school was hell, that most teachers -- not all, thank God, -- but most, were so despicable that it became an ethos amongst me and my friends to do things against them. One must do MUCH against them, each week, or else the universe will seem to get sort of knocked out of kilter. For fun, I once or twice returned to my old school as a temporary teacher, just for one or two days. I must have recounted something of how I felt relative to the teachers, because in the following weeks, I kept running into kids I didn't recognise, but who must have been in one of my classes. One of them had her parent beside her as she said: "You're the first teacher I've met that knows how much it is possible to hate the school." It was also quite clear to me -- and I was horrified to see that it covered that area to me -- that EVERYTHING including drugs that teachers held as bad was held as good by a plurality of the kids. (This also at some other schools I tried, for some days, to be a step-in teacher in.) I tried to draw the line and say that there's a difference between this, that and the other thing, but there was an absolute fascination in their eyes at the barest mention of drugs. And these were kids from relatively affluent families. In the area of sex, then, what is the case is that the bourgouoise morals (however that terrible b-word is written) held by teachers is automatically negated by many or most of the pupils. This signifies the following: the teachers don't have credibility. And this translates, of course, to the attempts of the governments in the various societies -- such as seen in the United Kingdom -- to censor sex. Their inherent lack of credibility echoes that of the teachers relative to pupils. They are merely cementing their absence of moral leadership by engaging in such censorship. And the unsavoury marriage between governmental leaders and the leaders of the advertisement-based billion dollar companies to 'root out the evil' of the net merely enforces a sense that the majority of the population hasn't got anything at all to look up to, as regards spiritual light or any ethical flame, when it comes to the leadership; it is just such petty acts that enforces that not just some healthy minorities, but ANY minority may come to be attractive to the population. I can say that I hate drugs, -- not because of what they've done to me, because I haven't ever used any of them but enough whiffs of marihuana to know the funny feeling it can give in the spinal chord and the extra musical sense of perception it can stimulate to -- and when I say I hate drugs, because I see it ruins the brains and looks and general health of people, it does make an impact on those who I say it to, I can say that. But that's because I don't have the stamp of a censoring authority on me. I have a credibility, also because I am willing to separate A and B from C; I think it is utterly disgusting that the most wonderful creation in this universe, or multiverse, the young untainted-by- culture human body is censored away, and its sexual lusts are connected to some kind of demonic impulse instead of being seen rightly, as a divine and good and angelic impulse -- I think censorship of the images of the nudes and the sexual activity of the nudes whether from adults or kids, whether during work hours, study hours or leisure hours is absolutely disgusting and worthy of hate. But I also think drugs should be hated, in the sense of what they, like much cultivation of food, can do to a body merely within a couple of seasons. There is another way of doing drugs, in a society we haven't seen yet, where minute elements are used elegantly and in ways that are randomized so as to prevent the knowledge that goes along with addiction -- quite in contrast to the 'open source' approach to all things alcohol, tobacco, and drugs in these days. (More about this elsewhere, or at another time). But much drugs make a sexual person unsexy, and does so very quickly. Also because the drugs at once do wierd things to the brain, if done regularly and over many months, and these wierd things in turn make the person gain something other than a good sense of discernment in clothes, in dance, in modes of expression, and ways of acting in general. And sexuality is the expression of the full fitness of the human being, however much we fathom the timeless concept of the stupid blonde. There's also the question of violence. Somehow violence is not censored as much as sex: does not that speak volumes of what is going on here? Sex is censored out of a number of purely irrational impulses which have been bundled together at a partially subconscious level in humankind. And it is just such repression, suppression, when mirrored in the psyche, the inner psychological society, of the human being and human child, that paves the ground for adult hysteria, for peculiar and also insane behaviour for those who have grown up with such internalised irrationality. There are those who claim that the typical suppression of sexuality in the modern societies -- and it IS suppressed, even if the degree of suppression varies sharply from the most barren societies to the various european ones -- that this suppression is a leftover of earlier fundamentalist rigid religious views. Thousands of years of rigid denial of sex do make an impact even on people who strive to attain to nobler meditations than those of the sex- and women-denying writers on which Augustine and Luther are topping the list. Personally, every adult I have had the fortune to know who have had a liberated, uncensored and even wild time sexually as kid has developed personality traits of unusual generosity, exceptional insightfulness, and expressive capabilities ranking them as some of the most brilliant citizens, also in public life. Those who stamp children out of the realm of exposure to the diversity of human behaviour also sexually are stamping themselves out of respectability and credibility, and they are shutting out the possibility for themselves to have the innocence as that of a child, which, according to the Bible, is necessary to enter that sought-for Kingdom of Heaven. Translated into another vocabulary -- that of karma, or, as I call a related concept, goyon, -- those who prevent children from being in contact with the refined expressions of lofty sexuality are getting stains on their karma; all good karma goes to those who work for a compassionate anarchy in the realm of sexuality and many other related themes. When this is the practise, for the societies so lucky that this becomes the practise, then we'll see that the drug-thing and the extremist-thing can be related to in wholly new, and much less complicated ways. For all the opposition to the 20th century-like established authorities feed on each other and nothing is more damaging for the human brain than being exposed to a society that is opposed to the blending of childish innocence with healthy sexuality. Let's also remind ourselves that the best of science, and the best of classical psychological writing, are on our side when we claim the right to work for what I call, and have called since about 2003, a compassionate anarchy. It is in every family's interest to explore such a long-term tolerant view of spiritual sexuality in which childishness and the youngest members aren't denied, and there must be a breaking, before long, with the bonds to the repressive extremist past of humanity, and its torrents of quasi-morality and pseudo- spirituality. This also must mean that we must make clean breaks with all typical establishments in the spiritual area -- not merely with extremist sects. We must do this in quiet, but strong ways, in ways which respect privacy, and which work long-term, and in ways which are willing to risk unpopularity, for it isn't always possible to combine wise action with popular action. But the inner quality of joy when there is real progress in such an area is, surely, insurpassable. Well well! As for the quote above, "Who are in majority, is it the wise, or it is the fools?" -- Henrik Ibsen let us be clear that the Norwegian source-word in this sentence -- "klok" -- cannot be translated into "clever" or "smart" in this context, and thereby I challenge the Gutenberg.org translation of this play. The word "klok" is used in the same connotation as the word "vis", and both are associated with concepts such as wise and sound and fair behaviour, whereas the notion of "clever" typically belong to another word-group altogether. Anyhow, whatever the majority is, be wise! And it is plausible, and not illusory nor hubris, we feel, to suggest that the non-mind-imitating relaxed approach to computing taken with yoga6d.org search engine, and the use of the Yoga6d.org/look.htm search engine portal, and the associated offline Personal Computer tools of the G15 kind that we've made, can be part of a wise person's standard toolset. Good luck with it always!